Standing Committee E

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Clause 18 - Dependant: definition

Karen Buck: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 11, line 5, at end add—
'(c) is over 18 years of age'.
 The amendment would exclude children under 18 and their families from accommodation centres and thus ensure that the children would retain the right to be educated in mainstream schools. The provision of other services is relevant to the amendment, but education is central. The Bill requires children who are placed in accommodation centres to be educated there, but it is appropriate to ensure their right to be educated in mainstream education by requiring them to be provided for within the dispersal system and outwith the accommodation centres. 
 Important issues of principle are involved. The case has been made powerfully and eloquently by some of the children's organisations that the children of asylum seekers should be treated as children first and asylum seekers second. Although I strongly believe in that principle, I do not want to address that issue now because we will return to it later in the Bill. Instead, I shall explore the practicalities and try to persuade Ministers to think again about the possibility of providing for children of asylum seekers in mainstream schools. 
 I have three points, the first of which is that we should focus on numbers. In that respect, the debate has become rather clouded in the past few weeks. We must think about whether it is right for children to be educated in accommodation centres, or whether they would benefit from being educated in mainstream schools. We must consider whether children being educated alongside the children of asylum seekers are damaged by that experience.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend accept that the amendment as drafted allows no flexibility in how the children of asylum seekers are educated or supported? It would be a different situation if the location of an accommodation centre was such that it would be difficult for a local authority to provide education or other facilities, or if only two or three children required such services. Would not there be merit in allowing some flexibility in the system, so that an authority could provide such facilities if it were able to do so?

Karen Buck: I am always open to a case for flexibility being made, but we should start with the onus being
 on the Government to ensure that education is in mainstream schools, with specific exceptions.
 The context of the amendment is important. A couple of weeks ago, the debate took off on the much broader question of how local services—not only schools, but health and social services—deal with a significant and sometimes rapidly increasing number of people, not only children and families, whose first language is often not English and who may have associated problems of trauma and dislocation. I have no difficulty entering into that debate. As a Londoner and a London MP, I have argued for the past five years that London schools that have taken many children of asylum seekers have needs and face pressures, and require more support. 
 This city has already taken on the responsibility and absorbed the overwhelming majority of Britain's asylum seekers and refugees. It is therefore right to consider the context of their needs. It is estimated that some 80,000 asylum-seeking children attend mainstream schools, two thirds of which are in London. There are schools in which half of all pupils are from asylum-seeking and refugee communities. It is a tribute to those schools and their staff that they do as well as they do, and that so many are high achieving and improving. 
 As well as political experience, I speak from personal experience. I do not often do so, but it is important in this instance. I have a child who attends an inner-city state primary school in London in which more than half the children are from asylum-seeking and refugee communities. Sometimes the allegation is made that those of us who speak on the subject and present the case that I am presenting do so from the comfort of communities outside those that are under pressure, or have changed, or have large migrant, asylum-seeking or refugee populations. As a parent as well as a politician, I say with passion that it is right and proper to strike a balance. 
 I would like more schools and services with a mixed intake. It is right for them and right for the communities that have so far taken the larger share of asylum seekers and refugees. That is why I support the principle of dispersal, although my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and I recall making the case before the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was passed that we were going to have to do much more to make dispersal work. 
 We will not add significantly to the child population already in the dispersed communities if we exclude children under 18 from accommodation centres. The debate should therefore not be confused with arguments about pressure on services in London and other areas, or about the mainstream of dispersal. It would be useful if the Minister could provide more guidance on the numbers. 
 I will assume for now that the accommodation centres will take approximately 750 people—we debated that before, although the number may be too large. Currently, nine out of 10 asylum seekers are adults, and only a tiny minority of all asylum seekers are unaccompanied children or families with dependent children. We may therefore assume that 
 among 750 people at an accommodation centre, there may be 40 couples and some unaccompanied children. There could be 150 children under 18, including babes in arms, children who would otherwise attend nursery, primary or secondary school, and young people who would otherwise attend sixth form or college. 
 Given that age range, it does not seem unreasonable to say that, most of the time, an accommodation centre could place those children in surrounding schools. Alternatively, for argument's sake, those who would otherwise be in accommodation centres but who could be dispersed in the community in the same area would not add significantly to the numbers in local schools. The experience of London and other centres of dispersal suggests that it would not necessarily be difficult to accommodate that number of children. 
 It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how she envisages the numbers working out, so that we can see whether we are talking about such large numbers of children that it would be completely unrealistic to expect an education authority to provide places for them. Given the statistical trends relating to asylum seekers, it is hard to see how that case could be made. 
 My second question is whether the children of asylum seekers benefit from education in mainstream schools and would therefore be better served by being provided for outside accommodation centres. It has been argued that the quality of education and other services provided in accommodation centres could be high, and I do not question that: it is perfectly possible that fine doctors and teachers and other service providers could be employed in accommodation centres. I do not doubt for a second that the quality of literacy or numeracy provision within such centres could be high. My point, which has been made very strongly during the last couple of weeks by educationists, teachers and others who have an interest in the subject, is that literacy and numeracy are only a small part of education. 
 The socialisation, confidence building and engagement that would come from being located in a community setting rather than an accommodation centre are critical. That has been borne out by research. The Economic and Social Research Council confirmed in 2000 that school plays a vital part in the lives of asylum seekers and refugees. It said that the 
''quality of the first few months is critical.''
 I do not believe that we will get most children through accommodation centres in six weeks. I would love to believe it. In some cases we will do so, but to be realistic, and in view of the importance of getting not merely fast but accurate decisions, it is more likely that young people and children will remain in accommodation centres for a number of months. Those first few months are of critical importance to those children. On current trends, roughly one in three will be permitted to remain in this country and will go on to settle in permanent accommodation, but three months is a long time for those children. If we are to give them the opportunity of a decent start to life, we 
 must get the provision of services, especially schooling, right from the start. All the advice and evidence from those involved in education, as well as my own feelings and experiences, tell me that education is best provided in mainstream schooling. 
 The head teacher of Star primary was quoted in the Evening Standard last week praising the motivation of the youngsters who arrive with a burning desire to make a success of their new home, adding that 
''They learn much faster surrounded by the local environment in classes with local children.''
 Of course such children require additional support and tuition—we have argued that at length—but they learn best by interacting with other children. If there is any evidence that the Government can claim in support of their case that children would learn better in those critical first months if they were separated from those in mainstream education, let us have that evidence on the table and debate it. 
 My third question is whether other children or students suffer as a consequence of mixing with the children of asylum seekers. A mixed intake is crucial, but it is not ideal if asylum-seeking or refugee children constitute 60, 70 or 80 per cent. of a school's intake. Evidence from Ofsted and my own experience as a parent suggests that that does not make a school a failure, but it is not ideal. We want those children to be distributed across educational institutions, where they, too, can develop best. 
 There is no doubt that, even in the concentrations that we experience in the inner city, the children of asylum seekers and refugees perform exceptionally well. I hope that the Minister will endorse at least that point. They are highly aspirational and motivated, and achieve remarkable results. It is critical that we send that message out into London, to the dispersed communities, and to the places where accommodation centres will be sited, whether or not there will be young people in them. 
 Let me highlight two examples from my casework that illustrate my point. The first is that of a 15-year-old boy who arrived here from Eritrea in 1999 with no English. In his letter to me, which is supported by documentary evidence, he says: 
''I was sent to Holland Park School to do an English Course . . . because of my age, I have been a quick learner and now speak English fluently''—
 so fluently that he is now on the gifted and talented register. He continues: 
''I have absorbed the British way of life and now consider myself a member of this great society . . . I achieved four grade As in my As levels in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Arabic . . . I am expected to achieve 5 grade A's next year, with further mathematics''.
 Unfortunately, that lad has not yet had a decision on his case, but it bears out my point. 
 The other example is that of a young woman who arrived here from Bosnia aged 15, unaccompanied and speaking no English. By the time she reached the age of 21, last year, she had got a first-class degree and was the only UK graduate recruited by Lehman Brothers in the United States. Unfortunately, she could not go 
 for a year because she had no travel documents but, again, those are practical problems. 
 More broadly, key stage 2 results in London, where 68 per cent. of asylum-seeking children are provided for, improved faster than the national average, as did the performance of London children at GCSE level. Earlier this year, the Osmani primary school in Tower Hamlets was cited as the most improved primary school in the UK. The Ofsted and Audit Commission report on local authority support for schools in inner London stated: 
''The inner-London LEAs have access to a . . . wide range of cultural facilities and the diversity of communities they serve is a real strength''.

David Lammy: I endorse much that my hon. Friend has said. It is certainly my experience in Tottenham that the children of asylum seekers and refugees respond well in our schools and that many do extremely well. Indeed, an exhibition currently in the House shows that children can come from far afield and do very well in the British system.
 Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that some children from some communities are struggling? That may be because of the experiences of the countries from which they have arrived. From my experience in Tottenham, I think of the Kurdish community from Turkey and the representations that Kurdish parents have made to me about how that group is struggling in some of our schools. I also think of Somalian children: a young Somalian child to whom I spoke recently had trouble in our school system and ended up in Feltham young offenders institution. Children who have had traumatic experiences might actually benefit from specialist provision and concentrated help when they arrive in the country, so that they can then enter the mainstream.

Karen Buck: I am absolutely persuaded by extensive personal experience that a significant minority of asylum seekers and asylum-seeking children are disadvantaged by their experiences and what they have witnessed. I am thinking of children who have seen their parents tortured or killed, and children who have been in war zones or are traumatised and dislocated. It is also true that the children of certain asylum-seeking communities from war zones do not have a tradition of educational achievement. However, I do not substitute the argument that asylum-seeking children are a drain on our schools and communities for the equally glib and banal argument that all such children are on the gifted and talented register. It would be facile so to do.
 The point is that all those children require the level of support that is appropriate to their needs, and that those children who require counselling and support will certainly do so for a great deal longer than the three, four or six months that they will spend in an accommodation centre or otherwise. That support will have to be continuing.

Neil Gerrard: If the implication of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was that children with particular difficulties should be the ones who go into accommodation centres, will my hon. Friend the
 Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) speculate on the ability of the National Asylum Support Service to select those children?

Karen Buck: I was drifting towards that conclusion. My hon. Friend the Minister might respond to that point. It is hard for us to know now what the selection process will be and the criteria that will be used to determine who goes into accommodation centres, and who remains in the dispersal system, going through NASS, which will be the vast majority of families with children and unaccompanied children. It is therefore difficult to draw a conclusion. If Ministers are thinking about that already, it would be helpful if they shared their thinking with us.
 Currently, we have no reason to assume that the selection will be anything other than entirely arbitrary. Therefore the children who require special needs provision, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has referred, could be placed either in an accommodation centre or in the dispersal system. Either way, they need to be provided for.

David Lammy: I am not a parent and I accept that many of my hon. Friends are, but I was only suggesting that one of the best experiences in our job is going into local schools and recognising how special all the children are, whatever their background.
 I understood my hon. Friend's point that a significant number of the children will need extra support because of what they have seen and where they have come from. The state provides extra support for children who are school-phobic, those who have been bullied so much that they do not want to go to school, and those who play truant. Such children may be educated in pupil referral units, often outside mainstream education. In the same vein, does my hon. Friend accept that there is a case for concentrating efforts on the children of asylum seekers as they arrive in the country? I refer to specialist English provision and specialist educationists who understand those children's psychological and other needs. That is all I was saying—I did not mean to go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow suggests.

Karen Buck: I understand that, but whether children spend a short time in an accommodation centre before going into mainstream education, or whether they go directly into mainstream education through NASS, we have got to get the level of support right. That includes the quality of support that we provide to teachers in the classroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has made an important point about bullying, and I think that the ESRC research talked about the risk of bullying.
 There is a great deal to get right, and we have not got it right in London: despite more than a decade of intensive experience, we certainly have not cracked the problem or found all the answers. Still less have we cracked it in schools in dispersal areas, which are still coming to terms with the numbers seen in the past couple of years. There is a huge job to do. 
 Two points remain. First, those initial few months after arrival are crucial. The school experience—being part of a community of children—plays a vital psychological role in the process of adjustment for 
 under-18s. That will be especially important for the one in three children who, on current trends, are likely to remain. Secondly, we have to provide support for both traumatised children and those who have to come to terms with dislocation. We have got to get that right in the nine out of 10 places that are outside accommodation centres, so we might as well get it right for everyone from stage one, and do so in mainstream education.

David Lammy: On that point, what if there is a crisis somewhere in the world in the next few months? It might be bigger than the current crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or it could be in one of the further reaches of eastern Europe. Let us assume that Britain goes to the aid of that country in some same shape or form, perhaps through the European Union or the United Nations. If a group, or community, as my hon. Friend rightly describes it, of children and families from that country arrives here, does she not accept that it would be best to concentrate efforts and keep them together, with specialist provision, than to split them up across London and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Karen Buck: I see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but I am not sure that the accommodation centres point is all that germane. We will have to cross that river anyway. Let us say that 5,000 or 3,000 people arrived. Whether they spend three or five months in an accommodation centre, that hurdle has to be jumped. We have to provide mainstream services for those whom we accept anyway. By excluding children from mainstream education in those first few months, we merely delay that process. Accommodation centres are not relevant, because, as planned, they will provide for only a tiny minority of people. I am not convinced that that argument undermines my case that all children should, as a matter of principle and practicality, start by being educated in mainstream schools.
 We should not be diverted from this challenge. We must ensure that good practice, resources and support for those services are put in place in the communities that will receive dispersed asylum seekers and in London, where we have not got everything right by any means. We should not be distracted into thinking that we need to set up a parallel set of services, which—even if it is as good as has been claimed—is likely to be infinitely more expensive than taking good practice and support from mainstream service delivery. 
 My last point is brief. If we are to overcome the fear of the unknown, which is a principal driver of anxiety in communities that are accommodating asylum seekers for the first time, and which often accompanies the arrival of strangers, schools are the best place to start. If we are to change the culture of fear and anxiety, letting our children mix from the beginning in those communities that are new to a more multicultural and mixed society is the right way to do it. Children are capable of leading the way. They are not innately anxious about people who speak different languages, are of a different colour and have different experiences. We should build on that and allow our 
 children to show our communities the way to ensure that asylum seekers become properly integrated. 
 I would welcome assurances from the Minister, as I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a vote. No doubt we shall return to these issues when we debate education issues later in the Bill. However, I would appreciate responses to my questions. Will the Minister share her thinking about the criteria used in the selection process? We must have an informed debate about which children should be based in accommodation centres and how to make the best provision for them. Finally, I affirm that children under 18 should be excluded from accommodation centres.

Neil Gerrard: I shall be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has already made a powerful case for the amendment. I shall add just a few points.
 I am worried that if we create accommodation centres that provide education services, we will be setting up an alternative to an existing service. I had hoped that after the experience of the first couple of years of NASS, when vouchers were used as an alternative social security system, we would be wary of going down that road. Medical and other services will certainly be provided in accommodation centres, but we would not suggest that people should be excluded from access to the national health service. 
 It is a matter of principle whether any child should be excluded from mainstream education. Like my hon. Friend, I represent a constituency that has for several years taken significant numbers of asylum seekers and refugee children. I have seen what happens when those children are admitted to schools. There is no doubt that problems and pressures are created when significant numbers of children arrive at intervals during the year rather than all at the beginning. Schools have to cope with different languages. Finance, too, can be a problem when children enter during the school year; it has to be dealt with at the end of the year, rather late. 
 The pressures and problems cannot be denied. I can think of schools in my constituency that have spare places. As well as receiving many asylum-seeker children, they often have to accept children who have been excluded from other schools, which does not make for an easy life. However, when I talk to teachers and staff in such schools, they often express a positive view and recognise the gains as well. As my hon. Friend said, asylum-seeker children are often highly motivated. 
 I was absent from Committee this morning because of the Queen's first visit to a London constituency as part of the jubilee celebrations. The Queen gave awards to several children, one of whom arrived in this country two and a half years ago as a refugee from Kosovo. He spoke no English, yet he was picked out by the school as an outstanding pupil who exemplified what was good in the borough and the constituency. 
 As I have mentioned before, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) 
 and I visited Kosovo and met families who had lived in the UK through the humanitarian evacuation programme and had returned to their home country. One of the main purposes of our visit was to see how they were getting on. I remember that members of one family had been killed in Kosovo while their children were at school in Leeds. Among other things, they showed us photographs of the school and cards that the other children had written to them when they returned to Kosovo. It was obvious from talking to the children, seeing their souvenirs and hearing about the relationships they had made in the school, that the asylum-seeker children and the rest of the children in the school had gained from being together and making relationships, even if it was only for a year or so. 
 Schools that receive significant, regular numbers of asylum-seeker children build up a degree of expertise. Many London schools have great expertise in dealing with those children. What worries me about the suggestion that asylum-seeker children should be educated in the accommodation centres is that they will be separated from other children and the mix will be lost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, education is not only about learning a language, or being taught how to do arithmetic; a vital part of education is about relationships and mixing with other children. 
 The argument about isolation and about people becoming institutionalised is my main general concern about large accommodation centres outside urban areas, but it is especially relevant to children.

David Lammy: As a young Member of Parliament, I rely on my hon. Friend, who is chairman of the all-party group on refugees, for advice on these matters. He mentioned the young Kosovan child who received a award from the Queen this morning. Does he accept that if the proposal as drafted works, and we hope that it will, such a child may—may is the important, operative word—have been in the accommodation centre for six months, after which period he will move into the system? He may then turn up at the school to which my hon. Friend referred and, I hope, receive his award. There is no bar on the real, positive social mix that we all applaud.

Neil Gerrard: Of course there is no bar, but I am not sure what is supposed to be gained by the six-month period. Let us take learning a language. Yes, language classes can be provided, but anyone who has tried to learn another language knows that it does not matter how many classes one goes to; one starts to feel comfortable with a language only when one uses it, or has to use it, to communicate with other people. Language skills develop much more quickly in those circumstances. In that respect, there is something to gain from immediate mixing.
 I worry about the social effects of keeping children separate for six months. That is a long time in a child's life and it may take some time to get over the experience. One reason why we were pushed to table the amendment relates to the decision that accommodation centres will, in the main, be large and outside urban and semi-urban areas. Small, local, isolated schools will find it difficult to take the numbers involved, which would be easier to cope 
 with in a larger town or city. That contradicts the very idea of refugee integration on which we have been trying to make progress. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham asked what would happen if there was a crisis in the world and significant numbers of families and children arrived simultaneously. If that happened, it is highly unlikely that they would go into accommodation centres, unless we are to leave centres standing with lots of empty places. We would act as we did with the humanitarian evacuation programme from Kosovo, when facilities were found in towns such as Leeds and Glasgow to accommodate 40 or 50 families together, and the children then went to local schools. That is what we would do if a humanitarian crisis resulted in significant numbers of people arriving in this country at the same time. 
 We might be able to deal with the question of education in other ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) asked for a bit more flexibility. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I am perfectly happy to consider being flexible, but the Bill does not build in flexibility. That is the purpose of the amendment. We want some certainty, but we should not isolate all the children who end up in accommodation centres.

Simon Hughes: I shall be very brief, because we may reach clause 30.
 I do not start from the same point as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, although the arguments are extremely persuasive and were well put by her. She spoke not only from constituency experiences similar to some of us, but, entirely appropriately, from personal experience in which she was honourable enough to make for herself the choices that public policy makers do not always make for others. 
 Earlier, I forgot the title and author of a book. I have now remembered it; it is called ''The Other Side of Truth''. It received a children's book prize of the year last year, and I recommend it to hon. Members. It was written by the South African journalist and novelist, Beverley Naidoo, and tells in fictional form a true story about two young Nigerian children who fled during the military regime and came to south London. In reality they came to Southwark, although the story does not make that especially clear. 
 Apart from the awfulness of seeing their mother killed and having to leave Nigeria in a hurry, the kernel of the story was that they ended being taken in by social services. The member of family who was supposed to meet them did not meet them, so they were then fostered and went to a local school. The beginning of their experiences in a pretty rough south London comprehensive was not pleasant. Other asylum seeker children were there, but as we know children can be very hateful to each other, and the other pupils were cruel. 
 That is why I have some sympathy with the Government's starting position, although I do not have an absolute view. I just share the desire to ensure 
 that we do what is right. We have a hospital school at Guy's for children who, for a short or long time, are patients at the hospital. It means that they have a school that meets their particular needs. It arranges classes around their timetables of treatment and care, accommodates their disabilities and physical difficulties and does not require them to travel long distances. There is a benefit in providing such a service at the beginning of a period during which youngsters who come here have particular education needs. 
 Kids are often brilliant at mixing and responding to the rest of the community. They do not worry about language; they just get on with it and sort themselves out within a short space of time. Therefore, there are huge advantages in ensuring that children are with other children as soon as possible, and not only with those of their own type from their own cultural background. If we are going to build a society of tolerance, understanding and respect, the Benetton adverts are right. We must mix children early when they do not notice colour and get on with life. Some needs may have to be met. Primary schools in my borough and elsewhere do a brilliant job of accommodating children wherever they come from. Most teachers will go out of their way to do that. Sometimes it is difficult, especially when the psychological needs are particularly demanding. Those needs may disappear in a short time, but the children must still acclimatise and face uncertainty, as the family may not know whether they will be staying. 
 I want to get the process right. It may be right for a short time, but it should be for no longer than a few months if sufficient numbers of children can be placed together. However, there is a danger of their becoming institutionalised, because the longer integration is delayed, the more difficult it is. We must listen to advice outside, as well as inside, the Committee about whether the teaching force has the capacity to deal with the numbers. Teachers in inner London and other urban schools may be better able to cope with a regular flow in an ever-changing class than those in schools in parts of the community where there has not been that tradition. Some of the accommodation centres are in places without much of a tradition of minorities, ethnic communities or asylum seekers. They may find it much more difficult generally. Not all my colleagues believe that. Some believe that there should be accommodation from the start. There are also issues relating to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' declaration of the rights of the child. 
 The case was well put by the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and for Walthamstow. I am open to persuasion that children should be integrated from the start. However, a period of transition and acclimatisation may be appropriate for some children. We should explore that and take advice on it. There will never be unanimity, but I hope that we can at least obtain the best solution for possibly the most difficult years for people for whom we have a particular responsibility.

Rosie Winterton: As has been said, the amendment would prevent us from supporting dependent children under the age of 18 in accommodation centres. All hon. Members have spoken passionately on a subject that is obviously of concern. I hope that my remarks will reassure hon. Members. I do not want to go too far down the line of particular education provision, as it is important that we debate the detail when we discuss the relevant clauses. However, I will touch on certain aspects.
 The amendment would give rise to scenarios that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North did not intend. If we were to say that families with children had to be separated if the parents went into accommodation but the children did not, I am sure that is not what my hon. Friend intended. I am sure that she would also accept that there may well be some practical difficulties if, for example, a couple in an accommodation centre had a child and did not want to be removed to other accommodation outside. In a technical sense that is what her amendment would do, and I am sure that she can see the difficulties of that. In that sense, her amendment will effectively mean that we are talking about accommodation centres for single people if we do not allow dependents in. That was not the intention or what the Government want to achieve in these trial—I emphasise trial—accommodation centres. 
 Many hon. Members have spoken very movingly about the situation of children in schools and the magnificent way in which teachers and the surrounding communities have looked after those children. My hon. Friend spoke of experiences in her own constituency and I know of similar circumstances in my own constituency, including tragic situations that I do not wish to detail. But it was clear that these were very vulnerable children who, luckily, received magnificent support from the school that was able to establish their particular difficulties. I pay absolute tribute to the work that is done in such situations and I am sure, from what my hon. Friend said about her own constituency, that they are also very well able to cope. 
 The debate brings home to me that a lot of these children are extremely vulnerable and that we also need to look at this matter in the context of our overall policy, as well as what we are trying to achieve through trialling these accommodation centres and the various measures that are being taken in this Bill. 
 The worst things for vulnerable children in such circumstances are delay and being in limbo, and not knowing whether refugee status is going to be granted or not. It is important that we look at how we can improve decision-making, and the accommodation centres are a vital part of that. 
 For clarification on a specific issue raised in the debate—I not sure if it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's park and Kensington, North, or my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—I emphasise that unaccompanied children will not be in accommodation centres. 
 We are trialling these accommodation centres and, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, if these are successful, we may want to them to be introduced on a much wider basis. My hon. Friend mentioned education, but there will be other services on site. In considering the use of accommodation centres on a wider scale—the plan is that, for families with the kind of vulnerable children we are talking about, there should be separate accommodation—it is only right that that we make sure that we are providing the best services for those families and those children.

Humfrey Malins: The Parliamentary Secretary rightly refers to services at the accommodation centres and clearly there is some serious thinking ahead on those matters. Could she confirm that it will be some months before any of the sites are chosen and announced, or will we hear sooner than that?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary touched on that recently when there was a discussion about the sites that had been identified. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we plan to make firmer announcements sooner rather than later.

Humfrey Malins: May we therefore expect an announcement within the next 10 days?

Rosie Winterton: I am afraid that I cannot confirm a particular date but, as I said, it will be sooner rather than later. If I can give any further information, I will certainly do so.

Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. This reminds me of the exchange in the House of Lords some years ago when a Minister said that an answer would made soon. When asked to define ''soon'', he said that it meant ''before long''. When asked which was sooner, he replied that he would not be drawn into that difficult territory. It is an important topic. The Parliamentary Secretary would naturally never withhold anything from the Committee, but if she knows something to the effect that there will be an announcement within days or weeks, we should be told.

Eric Illsley: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate and if the Parliamentary Secretary does not have the information, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it.

Rosie Winterton: All I can say is that two or three weeks would be nearer to the mark, if that is of any help to the hon. Gentleman. I have no more information than that, although I can confirm that the centres will not be open until 2003. To return to my point, as part of our overall strategy is to see whether accommodation centres are found to be effective, I hope that it will give my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North some reassurance to know that the evaluation system will be open and transparent and that all aspects of the provision will be examined.
 My hon. Friends made a number of comments about preparing people for their eventually being granted refugee status. The provision at the accommodation centres could certainly play a role in achieving that. I am sure that my hon. Friends would 
 also acknowledge that people can be isolated, even within a community. There are a number of ways in which one could look at the support provided by having other people around within an accommodation centre. We also have to take that into account when looking at schools, although I do not want to go completely down that line, as there is an important debate to be had on the subject later. 
 We are trying to make the process as quick as possible, so we must also look at the effect on local schools of a turnover of pupils. We must take that into account if we are to achieve our objective of letting people have a decision as quickly as possible. Again, I say that one of the worst experiences for children can be the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be able to stay in one country. We must examine provision in accommodation centres. If a family is granted refugee status, the children should be ready to go into mainstream education. That is precisely the point. 
 The clause is not about keeping children who have been granted refugee status out of mainstream education; it applies only to children who still have asylum-seeking status. Even that does not mean that provision cannot be made in the centres to prepare people—often an important aspect of ensuring quick integration once refugee status is granted.

Parmjit Dhanda: On evaluation, some schools—I visited one in central London in connection with the Science and Technology Committee—have become adaptable to and adept at meeting the needs of children from asylum-seeker and refugee families. What evaluation will apply to teaching provision in accommodation centres for such children? Will Ofsted be involved or will it be a matter for local education authorities? I do not know what balance will emerge. Will there be a mechanism for schools—perhaps schools in my constituency—to have an intake of refugees? St. Peter's school, for example, gained from the experience. Will it continue to have some link with accommodation centres?

Rosie Winterton: I assure my hon. Friend that a close relationship with the LEA will continue and that Ofsted inspectors will also be involved.

Parmjit Dhanda: May I take my hon. Friend back to vulnerable children? We all agree that special thought should be given to the needs of children who are exceptionally vulnerable. Does she accept that an institutional setting, which is what an accommodation centre will be, may be highly unsuitable for placing families when the parents, and possibly even the children, are victims of torture? An institutional setting might be quite wrong for such a group of vulnerable people.

Rosie Winterton: I understand that victims of torture are not dispersed. However, placement in a community may not necessarily be the most supportive environment. It may be a mistake to assume that a perfect life exists out there for asylum seekers who have been dispersed into the community. Some people in such circumstances might be highly vulnerable. We must not run away from that
 possibility. It may not be commonplace, but it does occur when asylum seekers do not receive the high level of support that we would all like them to receive. People can feel vulnerable even in their current communities. I stress that this is a trial. It could be argued that an accommodation centre would provide a more supportive environment for some people, but that must be evaluated.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North asked about the number of people who might be considered. Taking the figure of 750 people in an accommodation centre, 100 to 150 children would be right. She also asked about the criteria. In addition to the availability of places, the broad primary criteria will be language, family situation and port of entry or induction centre. The criteria will be open and transparent. 
 I hope that my hon. Friends accept that we understand the concerns that they have raised, but I re-emphasise that we are talking about pilots. If the pilots are rolled out more widely, it will be important to ensure that the services that we provide are the best for children, and we can do that only through trials. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North will withdraw the amendment.

Humfrey Malins: I must press the Parliamentary Secretary over the proposed sites. Does she or any ministerial colleague know the identity of any site that has been or is to be chosen by the Government? Does she know if or when any announcement will be made?

Eric Illsley: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the terms of the amendment, which are very narrow.

Karen Buck: I intend to put sticky tape over my mouth for the rest of the day so that others have a chance to move on, but if we do not have this discussion now, we shall have it later.
 On the initial point about the amendment's technical impact, there would be no need to separate families. Obviously, we are also discussing couples with dependants over 18, married couples without children and so on. The point is therefore not relevant, but in a sense this debate has been about exploring other issues. 
 I accept the point about turnover, and many points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. There is no perfect solution, as we do not live in a perfect world—we do not have world peace and prosperity. None of these issues is easy, either here or internationally, but an overwhelming number of children are already provided for in mainstream services, a great deal of good practice has been established and a number of problems have been identified. 
 In summing up, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that turnover is a particular issue in local communities. I accept that important point, but London schools are not unfamiliar with a turnover of 50 per cent. of children between key stages 1 and 2. As 
 a London Member of Parliament, I sometimes find it a little hard to listen to arguments about 150 children in a single LEA and the problems that they might bring to a school environment. One school has to cope with that number of children in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, and without enough support or recognition of the problems it has to deal with. 
 That brings me back to the point that we have a great deal to learn and a great deal to make better, but we must do that in the mainstream—in London, for the people who are already here, in dispersal centres and in and around accommodation centres. The good practice in education and the experience that is, and will continue to be, brought to bear on this issue by the teaching profession, teaching representatives, the Local Government Association and all those with an interest in education will reinforce the point that we must make provision in the mainstream and get it right for everyone.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend might be reassured by the fact that although we are trialling accommodation centres, that does not mean that we are not trying to improve the situation in mainstream schools.

Karen Buck: I appreciate that and I know that the proposal is not being ruled out, but we still have a long way to go.
 There has been talk about flexibility, but the Bill does not allow sufficient flexibility for the children who would benefit from early access to mainstream education, which means most of them, to have that. In an ideal world, I would be perfectly happy with many children and families going into accommodation centres, because there is much to commend them due to their general support. However, that must be done in conjunction with access to mainstream services, particularly education, for many, most or all such children. That flexibility is not in the Bill. 
 I do not intend to press the amendment, but we shall probably return to the issue. I want flexibility for the children, who range from nought to 18 and span the whole spectrum of education provision. With the right support, many or most of them, and their communities, would be best served by the experience of coming to terms with a mixed intake. I am reassured by much of what the Parliamentary Secretary said and the spirit in which she made her remarks. I remain convinced that we need flexibility, but for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Sections 15 to 18: supplementary

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'and decide'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 137, in page 11, line 8, at end insert
'in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child'.
 No. 241, in clause 36, page 20, line 1, at end insert— 
'(2) Where the Secretary of State inquires into a person's age under section 19(2) he shall not do so until he is satisfied that the person has had access to legal advice or assistance and representation. 
 (3) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides legal advice and representation to a person described in subsection (2). 
 (4) A grant under this section may be subject to terms or conditions (which may include conditions as to repayment).'.

Humfrey Malins: Amendment No. 136 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to decide a person's age or to draw attention to the issue. The Law Society is among many that are concerned about the implications of clause 19(2) with regard to children. As it says, assessing age accurately is difficult, so the benefit of the doubt should be applied to children unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
 The British Medical Association has also said that accurately assessing the age of the child is extremely difficult, and almost impossible when the child is between 15 and 18. A Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report also found that it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of a child's age within five years either way. Those assertions indicate that there should be safeguards to the effect that in a difficult decision in the case of a child, the benefit of the doubt should be applied unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. 
 Amendment No. 137 is designed simply to ensure that the process is conducted in the child's best interests and in accordance with the internationally accepted norms and procedures. Like the others, amendment No. 241 is a probing amendment designed to safeguard against a practice that is not uncommon: distressing questioning of minors. Apparently, there is considerable evidence of that as a current practice, and the amendment would ensure that children have access to a lawyer and legal advice before they are questioned.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is doing constituency work today, and he apologises for his absence. We support amendments Nos. 136 and 137.

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Member for Woking said, amendments Nos. 136 and 137 would prevent the Secretary of State from deciding a person's age when assessing whether they qualify for support in an accommodation centre. It is essential that the Secretary of State is able to make a decision on a person's age to establish which method of support is appropriate. We said that we would not place unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in accommodation centres. If we are to discharge that commitment, the Secretary of State must take a decision on someone's age. There would be little point in the Secretary of State being able to inquire about someone's age, if he could not decide the outcome of that inquiry in a dispute. Some people believe that there is an advantage to concealing their age. An adult may believe that it is better to say that he or she is a minor, as the local authority would be obliged to support an unaccompanied child. That
 would enable the person to stay in London if they had arrived there first. It is therefore important to be able not only to inquire about someone's age, but to take a decision on it.
 Article 3 of the UN convention on the rights of the child states that 
''the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration''
 in all actions concerning children. The Committee will be aware that the UK has a reservation on that purely to safeguard our immigration and nationality legislation. That does not inhibit our ability to take full account of the child's best interests. 
 Amendment No. 241 is unnecessary. Our concern is whether someone is the age that they claim to be. That can be difficult to establish if, for example, they cannot provide any documentary evidence. However, matters will not be improved by requiring the Secretary of State not to take a decision until the applicant has had access to legal advice or assistance and representation. The applicant will be entitled to apply to the relevant social services department for support as an unaccompanied asylum seeker. It is up to the local authority to consider whether there is evidence to back up the claim. 
 If someone arrives at a port and needs support, they will be referred to a reception assistant for advice, which is provided by members of voluntary organisations who specialise in dealing with migrants and refugees. If they consider an applicant to be a minor, they are likely to refer the person to the social services department for help. If a social services department does not consider the person to be a minor, it will refer them to NASS for consideration of support. In the absence of any other evidence, NASS will be guided by the view of social services. 
 In that system, if the person obtained judicial review of the move, they would be entitled to legal representation. However, given that the Government do not accept the case for legal advice and representation in the first instance, we see no need for a statutory power to make grants to voluntary organisations, with or without conditions attached, in those circumstances. 
 I hope that, with those assurances, hon. Members will not feel the need to press the amendment.

Simon Hughes: I have one question for the Parliamentary Secretary: do the Government have any plans to withdraw their reservation to the declaration of the rights of the child? If not, will she either tell us now or write to us saying why?

Rosie Winterton: We have no plans to withdraw our reservation.

Humfrey Malins: I have listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary and I am grateful to her. It was worth having that short debate, even though not all the questions were answered. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I reflect on the fact that, under the process here, the date on which the asylum claim shall be treated as determined is decided by the moment at which the Secretary of State sends off his notification. The calculation also involves the post for a couple of days. However, as we discovered earlier, the date on which someone applies is taken to be not the date on which they send off their application, or a couple of days later, but the date on which it is received. There is an inconsistency there.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I am delighted to be able to tell him that we shall consider it.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Person subject to United Kingdom

Angela Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 11, line 28, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
''(1) A residence restriction may include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre.''
 A person arriving in the UK may be examined by an immigration officer to determine whether he or she should be granted permission to enter. Such people are liable to detention pending an examination and any decision to grant or refuse leave to enter. However, they may be temporarily admitted to the UK without being detained, or may be released from detention pending a decision. They are then made subject to residence and reporting instructions. 
 Furthermore, persons who have been notified of a decision to deport, or concerning whom a deportation order is in force, are liable to be detained. Where they are not detained, they too may be subject to residence and reporting restrictions. The clause enables residence restrictions to include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre, in the same way that we can currently require someone to reside at a private address. The amendment will ensure that we have the necessary flexibility to require those who have been notified of a decision to deport, or who have been made the subject of a deportation order, to reside at an accommodation centre.

Simon Hughes: I have a question, and I am happy for the Under-Secretary to give the answer later, if she does not know it immediately. Once again from constituency casework, I am well aware that people are often refused, but given the right to be admitted in practice, with a later reporting date and so on. At some stage, will she be kind enough to tell us what percentage of people go through that initial process of refusal but admission, as opposed to refusal and detention?

Angela Eagle: I am afraid that I do not know the answer. I shall try to get the information for the hon. Gentleman and let him have it later in our proceedings.
 Amendment agreed to.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 11, line 36, leave out
''whether by him or by someone else''
 and insert 
''by himself of a member of his family.''

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 180, in page 11, line 36, leave out ''someone else'' and insert ''a dependant''.

Cheryl Gillan: Amendment No. 139, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, should say ''by himself or a member of his family'', but the amendment paper reads
''by himself of a member of his family''.
 I hope that the misprint is corrected. 
 The amendment simply probes to discover further and better particulars from the Minister. It is wholly inappropriate that a person should be required to leave accommodation as a result of the actions of others, over whom no control has been exercised, in a form of absolute vicarious liability. What does she mean by ''someone else''? She is nodding furiously. I am sure that when the time comes, she will be able to fill us in. 
 It seems to be a wholly unreasonable proposition that the clause should be drafted so widely and so inappropriately. To dwell on the point, if someone in a centre with a group of friends had a party that got out of hand and broke the terms and conditions, it would be quite inequitable for that individual disproportionately to suffer punishment from which there was no escape and for something that they may not have been responsible for in the first place. As we know, all legislation is gender blind, although the wording implies a man. However, we must consider the position of women who may be in such centres and what might happen in circumstances over which a woman has no control whatever. 
 It is not unreasonable to propose a substitution and to say that a member of the family is someone over whom an individual may be expected to have some control. Therefore, we would substitute the words 
''by himself or a member of his family''
 in the hope of some recognition of the fact that the drafting is inappropriate in such conditions. I hope that the Minister, after all her furious nodding and smiling, agrees with me and either accepts my proposal or makes one of her own that would tighten up that area and not leave such a gaping, inequitable provision in the Bill.

Simon Hughes: The amendments are variations on a theme. The hon. Lady has spoken to one; ours would restrict the liability factor in subsection (3). Her amendment proposes that someone should be liable to penalty only if there is a breach by that person or a member of their family. Our alternative proposition, if the Government find it more acceptable, is that someone would be liable only if there were a breach by that person or a dependant. I think that we are knocking on the same door.
 We certainly think that when there is a residence requirement one should not be held liable for breaching it if the fault is widely drawn as someone else's. I shall make the link points now, rather than during the debate on clause stand part: subsections (1), (2) and (4) seem entirely reasonable, but subsection (3) seems entirely unreasonable—that element raises the big issues. The debate will test both specific liability and the wider point. 
 I do not propose to ask the Committee to vote to remove subsection (3), but I hope that it is amended substantially or taken out on Report. I understand that under the 31-year-old Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State can, quite reasonably, impose restrictions on somebody to control where they live. That has always been the case during our political lifetimes. It is proposed that it should continue and there is no argument about that. However, it raises the issue of what happens if someone breaks their residency condition, which is already regarded as affecting the credibility of an asylum application. I understand that, and I think that I am right in saying that it has been tested in the European courts as being compatible with the European convention on human rights. A breach of a residency requirement can relate to the credibility of an asylum application, but we must tread carefully. 
 The right to make a case for asylum and the right to be granted asylum, which are two different things, are not qualified in the convention because they are absolute rights provided that an applicant, having made their case, fulfils the conditions on fear of persecution. That has always governed us, and we were parties to the convention when it started.

Humfrey Malins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an interesting parallel in criminal law? If a person breaks his bail conditions it is not held against the merit of his case when it comes before court.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is particularly qualified to give that as an example from his experience as a recorder. He and I share a concern that clause 21(3) links three things: the asylum application and its merit, the conditionality of residence, which already affects the credibility of the asylum application, and the residence condition, which will be linked to behaviour in the place of residence. Clause 21(3) clearly states that
''if the person is required to leave an accommodation centre at which he is resident as the result of the breach''—
 we are debating who could be responsible for the breach— 
''of a condition of residence, he shall be treated as having broken the residence restriction referred to in subsection (1).''
 In the most extreme case, someone may be asked to leave a centre because glasses were broken during a party, for which other people were responsible. A less extreme case may involve someone's personal behaviour—they may have come back an hour late at the end of the day and were required to leave by the management. That would be regarded as a breach of the residency requirement that related to the acceptability or credibility of their asylum 
 application. Unless the Minister can point to another part of the Bill in which that is contradicted, the fact that someone had been required to leave the centre would, in theory, trigger the possibility of being detained, being refused leave or being summarily removed. It must be wrong that someone's behaviour in an accommodation centre, however bad, should determine their asylum application. 
 We have had that debate in another context. If somebody misbehaves and breaks the law, they are punished according to the law, and it makes no difference whether they are an asylum seeker or a native-born Briton. If they are in an institution and break the rules, they are punished according to the rules—the only way in which punishment can happen. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I are justified in putting this case because page 57 of the White Paper states: 
''Residents of Accommodation Centres who breach these''
 residency or reporting 
''requirements will be left in no doubt that their actions may affect the outcome of their asylum claim, where the non-compliance damages their credibility.''
 The Immigration Law Practitioners Association takes a view, similar to mine, that it is entirely unacceptable for a person's asylum claim to be affected by their behaviour. They are unrelated matters, and behaviour is not relevant to proper consideration of the entitlement to asylum. The Refugee Council says that it would oppose any plan to link any aspects of an individual's behaviour in an accommodation centre to their asylum claim, which, it says, would not only be contrary to the spirit of the 1951 convention, but would lead to legal challenges and place further pressure on the Immigration Appellate Authority. 
 The Government may not like it when people misbehave. I do not know what happened at Yarl's Wood or how that started, because I have not seen the report, but it appears that there was some misbehaviour. If there was misbehaviour, people must be punished: if they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. However, even if there were severe misbehaviour, that should not make people liable to have their asylum claims considered differently. However tempting it is when under pressure suddenly to move people into new categories for which the Government can find new excuses to turn down asylum applications, it is morally wrong. I hope that the Government confirm that the clause needs redrafting.

Humfrey Malins: If ever two amendments ought to be accepted, either with their present or similar wording, these are they. Make no mistake, clause 21(3) reads as follows:
''the person is required to leave an accommodation centre at which he is resident as the result of the breach (whether by him or by someone else) of a condition of residence''.
 That is what it says in plain English, and it will not do. 
 The parallel that I used was that of a criminal court. If a person is given bail with a condition of residency at an address and he breaches that by not residing at the address, he is separately dealt with by the court for 
 a breach of the bail condition. It is inconceivable that that person would have adverse inferences, about their defence or their case, drawn from that breach. That would be a ludicrous proposition. I urge hon. Members to take that on board and realise how grossly unfair—and possibly illegal—it would be for the merits of someone's asylum case to be affected by the conduct of someone else over whom they had no control. Even to argue that someone's asylum claim could be affected as a result of his breaching a condition is astonishing. 
 The Home Office website states: 
''Anyone who breaks the rules will lose support.''
 Can the Minister be specific and say what would happen in various scenarios if the rules were broken? The website also states: 
''Breaking the rules may also affect their claim for asylum.''
 Can the Minister say exactly what is meant by that? Does it mean that if a case if full of merit, the adjudicator will have the breach drawn to his or her attention and will be told to take less notice of the merit because of the breach? Even that is an absurd proposition, but to go further and say that a person's position would be affected by the conduct of someone else over whom they have no control is, in my respectful view, ludicrous. I cannot see how the Home Office can possibly justify the clause.

Angela Eagle: First, I would like to reassure Opposition Members about the meaning of ''someone else'' in this context. Clause 26 makes it clear that if a person or their dependant breaches a condition, both may be required to leave the centre, in accordance with policy. I hope that everyone accepts that there must be certain rules and standards of behaviour. Clearly, criminal law will apply to certain forms of behaviour but, short of the criminal law, it is necessary for good order that there are rules and standards of behaviour. Therefore, it is appropriate that there should be sanctions if people breach those rules. The sanctions will depend on and be proportionate to the extent and seriousness of the breach. I would not expect any disagreement with that.
 Secondly, the reference to ''someone else'' in subsection (3) that has caused concern can only refer to the dependant referred to in clause 26. That is not a wide use that allows us to attach anyone else to the individual.

Simon Hughes: It does not say that.

Angela Eagle: That is what it means. ''Someone else'' refers to the dependant that is mentioned in clause 26. We do not have the power at present, nor will the Bill give us the power, to require anyone other than the resident or his or her dependant to leave as a result of a breach of conditions. I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who made an equally important intervention on this issue, do not believe me, but that is the case. We do not have an arbitrary power to require anyone who may be completely unrelated to an individual to leave an accommodation
 centre or suffer any detriment for a breach, of whatever seriousness, simply because they happened to be in the same place. Clearly, that would be absurd.

Humfrey Malins: Is the Minister telling us that clause 26 says that ''someone else'' shall mean a dependant? If it does, I stand corrected. Otherwise, it is no good her telling us that she is advised that it can only mean a dependant, because the advice that she has received is bunkum.

Angela Eagle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take that up with parliamentary counsel. Let me reiterate: the power to require someone to leave a centre comes from clause 26. We have not yet examined the clause in Committee, but the key reference in it is to ''any dependant''. Therefore, ''someone else'' as mentioned in clause 21 refers to the dependant and to no one else.

Humfrey Malins: Why not say so?

Angela Eagle: The language used is a drafting issue. I am merely conveying to the Committee our understanding of what it means. Clearly, it would be absurd for us to have an arbitrary power to expel from accommodation centres people who are unrelated or who are not dependants, because of the behaviour of someone else. The Government have no intention of doing that. We do not have the power to do it now, and the Bill, were it to become an Act, would not give us such a power. I state that as a fact but, clearly, Opposition Members do not believe me.

Cheryl Gillan: Methinks the hon. Lady doth protest too much. She agrees with us that arbitrarily requiring someone to leave because of the behaviour of someone else is ridiculous. She referred to clause 26(4) and (5), which clearly say,
''require the resident and any dependant''.
 What possible objection can she have to substituting the words ''or a dependant or a member of his family'' in subsection (3). That is not for parliamentary counsel. The hon. Lady is the Minister, so she can instruct parliamentary counsel and she can tell them what to do. She is in charge of the legislation, and she should listen to her own common sense and replace those words.

Angela Eagle: We have had three run-ins about plain English, and I suspect that this is another example. ''Someone else'' refers to dependants in clause 26, so the ''someone else'' referred to in clause 21 can only be the dependants. That is the legal advice we are working from. The position is exactly the same as that which the Opposition have declared is their wish. It is already in the Bill, so there is no need to change it. There is no way under the Bill that ''someone else'' can mean anything other than dependants, to which clause 26(4) and (5) refer.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle: I do not know what good it will do.

Simon Hughes: I cannot work out whether the hon. Lady has not been a Minister long enough or has been a Minister too long. She is not being as robust as usual and as I know she can be.
 If we are going for plain English, the wording must be consistent between one clause and another. The Minister understands the point. We can all do the cross-referencing, but life should not consist of cross-referencing and finding that a phrase on one page means something else two pages later. I am simply asking her to tell her draftspeople to make the wording in clause 21(3) the same as that in clause 26(4) and (5). It is not difficult. It can be done on a word processor and does not even require a parliamentary draftsman.

Angela Eagle: I think that parliamentary draftsmen would be worried about the hon. Gentleman's last point.
 I can only reiterate that there is no intention of arbitrarily visiting on someone who is not a dependant the consequences of someone else's behaviour. I shall consider what hon. Members have said, but my strong advice and my understanding is that there is no difference between what is in the Bill and what is in the amendments. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister has dealt with one aspect of the matter, although not satisfactorily, but she failed to answer our other question. Exactly what effect will it have on an asylum applicant's case in legal terms?

Angela Eagle: I suppose that we all got caught up in the problem of ''someone else'' and ''dependants''. I hope that I can reassure hon. Members about the other issues that were raised in the general debate.
 We cannot, will not and do not intend automatically to refuse an asylum seeker's claim merely because of their behaviour. Opposition Members are worrying too much about that. We must assess asylum claims, regardless of behaviour, but someone's credibility may be affected by non-compliance. I emphasise ''may be'', and each case must be examined before making a judgment. There is no automatic refusal. Bad people or people who do not comply may be genuine refugees and may be granted refugee status. I shall give some examples. 
 Behaviour may be taken into account if it is relevant to the claim. It is extremely unlikely that someone who broke a glass—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey used that example—would be required to leave the centre, and even less likely that that behaviour would be taken into account in their asylum claim. It is almost impossible to imagine that it would. However, if someone failed to live in an accommodation centre and sought employment but it turned out that the employment was set up before the asylum seeker arrived, that may be a relevant consideration to take into account in the asylum claim. That is all that is meant by the wording in the clause. Each case will be taken on its merits; any behaviour consideration must be relevant to the claim, or it cannot be considered. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: I am glad that the Minister will consider the small drafting point that we made. We look forward to that being easily dealt with.
 On the more substantive matter, I hear what the Minister says, but that is not what the Bill permits. I understand her point, but a person's behaviour and whether they comply with the requirements for accommodation should be, and in my view must be by law, separate from the merits of the application. When an adjudication is made on an application, all the information is taken into account in the context of the application. There is no need for any wording in the Bill. There should certainly not be a link back, so that in theory a small breach of a condition of residence, such as coming in late or not coming back one evening, which may have an entirely innocent explanation, could be treated as relevant for the purposes of the person's asylum application. There is nothing to stop that in the law as proposed. In law that is wrong, and it should be taken out. I am happy to talk to civil servants and Ministers about why it should be taken out, and we can obtain legal advice about it, but I am sure that it should go. I hope that, on Report, the Government will agree. If they do not, I give notice that, in this House and in the other place, we will seek to have the provision removed.

Cheryl Gillan: I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Minister has an opportunity to reflect on the matter away from the Committee and before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.
 I shall not press the amendment to a vote. The Minister knows how Opposition Members feel on this issue. I have a sneaking suspicion that she agrees with us. It is a shame that, for the sake of some rather poor advice, she is sticking to this inaccurate wording. If subsection (3) is to remain in the Bill, I urge her to reconsider it, because it is still open to false interpretation, always assuming that Pepper v. Hart prevails and, therefore, that what she has said will be taken into consideration when the Bill is interpreted. It is an unsatisfactory situation. I am sure that the Minister is capable of asserting her authority over parliamentary draftsmen and repairing the matter in her own way. As it is not something that we shall die in a ditch over, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: For the reasons that I gave before, I cannot support the clause. I shall not force a vote now, but I hope that it will come back in a better form on the Floor of the House. If not, we shall oppose it.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Facilities

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 12, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Eric Illsley: With this we may take the following: Government amendment No. 107.
 Amendment No. 184, in page 12, line 29, after 'training', insert 
'(which will include education and training in the English language, information technology and business skills)'.
 Government amendment No. 108. 
 Amendment No. 144, in page 12, line 30, after 'medical', insert 'and psychiatric'. 
 Government amendment No. 109. 
 Amendment No. 143, in page 12, line 33, at end insert— 
'(j) independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State.'.
 Amendment No. 145, in page 12, line 33, at end insert— 
'(k) comprehensive interpreting services'.
 Amendment No. 183, in page 12, line 33, at end insert— 
'(j) adequate leisure and play facilities.'.
 Amendment No. 185, in page 12, line 36, after '(1)(b)', insert 
'such amount to be no less than 10 per cent. of the relevant income support personal allowance.'.
 Amendment No. 186, in page 12, line 37, leave out paragraph (b). 
 Government amendment No. 115.

Humfrey Malins: This is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. It merits a serious debate, because so many people across the country involved in asylum and immigration work have expressed views about it. The clause relates to the services and facilities in an accommodation centre, and all that will happen in them.
 I want to preface my remarks, Mr. Illsley, by apologising for raising on a previous clause a question that was not relevant at the time. However, it is relevant to this clause, because the accommodation centres will open in due course and the services will be available. Many people are listening to this debate to find out what facilities will be available, when they will open and when an announcement will be made about the chosen sites. 
 Has a decision been made about the proposed sites? If so, is it to be announced in the next two or three weeks? Will she confirm that no decision will be made or announced until the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament? Otherwise, the Government would be making decisions without the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will want to answer those specific questions.

Angela Eagle: To put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, I can tell him that we have not made decisions on which sites we shall go ahead with. We are considering which sites to submit planning applications for, and that is the beginning of the process. Planning is never a forgone conclusion, as the hon. Gentleman will know. An announcement on which sites we intend to submit planning notifications will be made soon, but no
 decision has been taken about individual sites or which sites we shall build on. We are simply looking at sites on which planning applications can be submitted.

Humfrey Malins: That is helpful. The Committee and others outside will want to know what the Minister undoubtedly knows: which sites will the Government nominate as sites for which they wish to apply for planning? Can she specifically answer that during the debate?
 Amendment No. 142 is the important amendment, but I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 144, 143 and 145 as well. The clause reads: 
''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident''.
 Amendment No. 142 provides that the Government ''shall'' instead of ''may''. 
 People in the accommodation centres will often come from a difficult and vulnerable background. Many will have undertaken long and hazardous journeys. They will come to centres where they are likely to live, sometimes with their families, for a period which, according to the Minister, could be four months. The first few days and the first two or three weeks of an asylum applicant's life in this country are terribly important, and it is vital that the fullest possible range of services is provided to the applicant and his or her family at the earliest opportunity. While we welcome a number of the services proposed, we strongly believe that it should be a duty on the Secretary of State to arrange for them to be provided. It should not simply be a possibility—something that the Secretary of State may do—because that gives the Secretary of State freedom to provide some services in one accommodation centre and others or fewer in another. My hon. Friends and I believe that there is a need to provide the services, and the Bill would be much better phrased if it placed a duty on the Secretary of State. As the Minister will say, in due course, that services will be provided, why does the Bill not say that they will be provided, rather than 
''The Secretary of State may arrange''?
 If the Minister has doubts about whether they will be provided, she should say so. However, if she is in no doubt about their provision, the Bill should say that the Secretary of State shall arrange for them to be provided. 
 What is not included in the list that should be there? First and most important, there should be on-site, independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State. I have been to Oakington, as have some of my colleagues. The Immigration Advisory Service offers full legal representation on that site. The Refugee Council or the Refugee Legal Centre—forgive me, I know which it is but it has escaped my mind—is also there in great number. I believe that there are 54 caseworkers from the Immigration Advisory Service. 
 What happens at Oakington? Admittedly, there are different types of cases, because some are said to be easier to determine. However, the reality is that as 
 soon as someone arrives, they receive legal advice on the site. That must apply to accommodation centres as well. Goodness knows, every non-governmental organisation involved in asylum or immigration work and everyone that is interested in the subject agrees that access to legal advice at the earliest possible stage is absolutely vital. We will come on to that when we discuss induction centres. 
 Clearly, there should be a duty on the Home Secretary to provide legal advice and representation on site—not somewhere else—for asylum seekers. Why? According to the Government, the purpose of an accommodation centre is to have a smooth, speedy, satisfactory, humane and efficient resolution of an asylum application. Therefore, it must be right to offer on-the-spot legal advice as part of the operation. 
 I have seen it written down in Home Office documents and I have heard the Home Secretary and the Minister say that the Government intend to provide legal advice and assistance at or sufficiently near accommodation centres. If that is the case, why are they omitted from the Bill? The Bill says: 
''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following'',
 and lists food, money, assistance with transport, education and training, medical facilities, facilities for religious observance and 
''anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for a person because of his exceptional circumstances.''
 Why are the classically important legal advice and assistance not included? They should be. 
 I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment. Many outside the House support it, and it is wholly supported by my hon. Friends and I, and, I believe, by the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Back Benchers who know the importance of immediate legal advice and agree that its presence on site at an accommodation centre is critical. If an accommodation centre is located in a rural location, let us not be told that legal advice is available miles away. Let us not be told that transportation facilities are not too bad if an asylum seeker wishes to travel for an hour or two to get advice. Let us not be told that there are local lawyers prepared to give advice if someone is seeking it. Let us be told that the Government will offer legal advice on site.

Eric Illsley: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but this seems a good time to suspend the Committee until 5 pm.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Humfrey Malins: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. You have missed a most interesting session. We are now debating amendment No. 142 and its group, under the very important clause 25. I had concluded my remarks on amendment No. 142, urging the Minister to accept ''shall'' instead of ''may'', and almost concluded my remarks on the absolute need to have independent legal advice and representation,
 funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State, present on site.
 The Government may make a planning application in respect of a rural site. I am anxious to draw observations from the Minister on that when she replies. What will happen if the site at Bicester or, more accurately, the village of Piddington, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)? I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to tell us, if she knows, whether that rural site has been selected as one in respect of which an application will be made. If she does not know that, I am sure that she will be prepared to tell us that she does not know, and silence from her on the point would indicate a complete absence of knowledge. If I am wrong, I am sure that she will tell us at some stage of the debate. If an application were made for that site, any legal advice would be miles away. The closest proper legal advice—for want of a better phrase—would be in Oxford, where legal services are already heavily overstrained because of demand. All the more reason, therefore, to say that legal advice must be present on site. 
 I shall speak to two other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 144 would add ''psychiatric''. If the Minister tells me that the phrase ''medical facilities'' includes psychiatric services, I shall be entirely content. In reality, as she well knows, many people who claim asylum are heavily traumatised, not least the youngsters, after the most horrific experiences. The presence of those services on site is most important. 
 Comprehensive interpreting services are also important. I think that I have seen several references to them. If we are to have the one-stop shop, which I think is so important, at accommodation centres, every relevant service must be on site. The Minister's hope that the applicant will remain on site only for a brief time could then become reality. The converse would be the case were those services not on site, especially in a rural accommodation centre, where people would have to travel long distances to get the services, and the efficiency that the Minister seeks would not be found. 
 I believe that the Minister should take on board my amendments to change the wording to ''shall'', to provide ''independent legal advice'' and to add ''psychiatric'' services and ''comprehensive interpreting services''.

Simon Hughes: I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. I happily support amendments Nos. 142, 144, 143 and 145 in the name of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam. I also speak to amendments Nos. 184, 183, 185 and 186 that stand only in my name and that of my colleague.
 My first and substantive point is one that comes up often when debating legislation but is no less important for that. Government draftspeople, the famous and oft-referred-to Government draftsmen and draftswomen, always provide the Government with opt outs. They always use the wording that Secretaries of State ''may'' do something, and then 
 Ministers come to the Dispatch Box or to Committee and say that the Government intend to do that, but they will not agree to write it into the Bill. That is common, and the fact that we have been round this course before does not make it any more justifiable. 
 Although I understand where the Government are starting from, there is no excuse in this case—it is one of the strongest that I have been aware of recently—and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment so that, instead of an option, they have an obligation. Again, I give notice that if we do not get obligations in Committee, we are pretty likely to get them at another stage of the proceedings, before we finish discussing the Bill. It would be easier to concede earlier—and gracefully—rather than later. 
 One reason why many of the services that should be provided for residents in accommodation centres should be described as ''shall'' obligations and not ''may'' options is that the White Paper clearly said: 
''Services, including health care, education, interpretation and opportunities for purposeful activities will also be provided for''—
 not ''may'' be provided for. 
 The White Paper continued, in paragraph 4.36: 
''Accommodation Centre residents will have access to legal advice''—
 not ''may'' or ''might'' have access to legal advice. 
 On 7 February 2002, the Secretary of State said: 
''Yes, legal advice will be available in the accommodation centres.''—[Official Report, 7 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 1031.]
 He did not say that it ''may'' be available in the accommodation centres. Lord Rooker, on the same day, giving a statement in the Lords, said: 
''The centres will offer education, healthcare and legal and interpreting services.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 743.]
 I do not think that we disagree on the core issues. The Government made those points very clearly in the White Paper and in both Houses on the same day. I therefore hope that that can be easily agreed. 
 The hon. Member for Woking argued for some additional services, which we support. The Minister may say that psychiatric services are covered by the word ''medical''. I suppose that, on a wide interpretation, they could be so described, but we have flagged this up because many asylum seekers have severe psychiatric problems, as all members of the Committee know. I think that I am right in saying that, for very understandable reasons, such problems are more common in that group than in any other group in the community. Dealing with mental health is as important as dealing with physical health. 
 It is clear that there must be independent legal advice and representation. Experience shows that the sooner people get that the better. To be honest, bad applications require much more undoing later than good ones. People have experience, so will make applications as has been suggested, which I hope will be acceptable. Comprehensive interpreting services must also be available, otherwise no one will get off home base. 
 The additional matters covered by the amendments that my hon. Friend and I tabled include an amplification of how training is defined. I accept that amendment No. 184 is a probing amendment, but it picks up the point that the hon. Member for Walthamstow and I have now made twice in this Committee, which had all-party support. From the beginning, adults should be trained in the English language and in information technology and business skills, which are the two other most useful skills people should have, whatever their background or prospects. 
 Amendment No. 183 would include 
''adequate leisure and play facilities.''
 I learned a long time ago that play facilities are as important for youngsters as education. Good play facilities, particularly for younger children, are hugely important. There needs to be space for them to play. 
 Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 are different in nature. Amendment No. 185 would add 
''such amount to be no less than 10 per cent. of the relevant income support personal allowance.''
 after line 36, which deals with the provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the amount of pocket money that can be provided. The Minister, in her previous incarnation at the Department of Social Security, will remember earlier debates during this Parliament on that issue. She will be aware that it is most important to ensure that people in this country temporarily are given a minimum income, so that basic income levels are guaranteed. The Bill provides for some pocket money to be available to residents. The amendment is designed to flush out from the Government the amount that is being considered. We have chosen an amount that is 10 per cent. of what is thought to be the basic minimum allowance necessary. The amendment is a probing one, and the sooner we can see the regulations the better. 
 We have attempted to remove subsection 2(b). At the moment, it would permit the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the manager to decide what the pocket money levels should be. We believe that that matter should be dealt with on a common basis throughout the country. Living costs are different in different parts of the country. However, we are not talking about living costs but pocket money. I do not think that the differences are such that we need delegated responsibility. I am all in favour of delegated responsibility, but it strikes me that, for people who will be in a limited environment for a limited period, it would be very unfair if a common amount of pocket money were not given. 
 However, there is a more important point that I am alert to, and I suspect that Ministers have spotted it. There could be a conflict of interest. Managers of accommodation centres might hold a budget. The centres may be, as I would wish, entirely in the public sector with public sector employees. It would be much worse if they were not in the public sector and run by those working a profit-based operation. In that instance, the Home Office could pay a fixed sum to a private contractor to run the service and to run the accommodation centre. There would be an incentive 
 for those running the centre to keep the amount of money they paid out as small as possible. 
 In that case, there is a serious issue of public policy at a second level, as well as the obvious one about unfairness across the system. Whether a person is sent to an accommodation centre in Edinburgh, Wales or Grimsby, they need to know that a standard amount of pocket money will be paid, otherwise the process would be unfair. I hope that the amendments will be supported in principle even if the drafting has to be amended at a later stage.

Angela Eagle: The amendments cover the whole range of provision in accommodation centres. I hope that Opposition Members will work from the premise that we have taken powers to provide what we need to fund. The list in subsection (1) includes provisions that the Home Office will be funding, and needs to take statutory powers to fund. It does not include those provisions for which a statutory power to fund already exists in other legislation. That is the explanation for the non-appearance of legal services in that list. There is no doubt whatever that legal services will be freely available in accommodation centres as required. In the trials, we would certainly want to develop co-located services or access to services, so that visitors would come to the accommodation centre to provide services, rather than individuals leaving the centres to get legal services.
 We do not need to include legal services in the list, because the vast bulk of them are funded not by the Home Office, but by the Legal Services Commission, which already has the power to do so. There is no intention that commission funding should not apply to accommodation centres, as it already applies to other measures. That explains why legal services are not in the list.

Humfrey Malins: Does the Home Office fund the Immigration Advisory Service?

Angela Eagle: Yes, but there are moves to shift the funding of such organisations away from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there is no perceived conflict of interest in the Home Office running a system and funding legal advice to the people in it.

Humfrey Malins: Like Oakington.

Angela Eagle: Well, there are people who believe that Home Office funding for such things is odd, and raises issues of independence and potential conflicts of interest.
 Under section 81 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Home Office grants funds to the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service. Clause 87 provides an equivalent power as regards those with a right of appeal under part 5, subject to geographical constraints. It would certainly be open to accommodation centre residents who are appellants to access advice, and we intend to provide it. Legal advice is not in the list simply because it will be funded not by the Home Office but by the Legal Services Commission, which comes under the Lord Chancellor's Department. The list deals with those 
 services over which we will have to take explicit new powers in primary legislation if we are to fund them; it is not an exhaustive list of what we intend to provide in accommodation centres.

Humfrey Malins: Is the Minister saying that legal services are not in the list because the Home Office will not provide the funding? If so, what does she say to the point that the Home Office funds the Immigration Advisory Service, which is present at Oakington? Will it not be present and funded at accommodation centres?

Angela Eagle: Clause 25 refers to what will be done at accommodation centres, not to the rest of the system, which is regulated by the 1999 Act. I have just mentioned the provision in the Act that gives the Home Office the right to fund the Refugee Legal Service and any other services at Oakington.
 Clause 25 refers to a new creation—accommodation centres. We intend that such centres will have legal advice providers and that the Legal Services Commission will provide and pay for that advice. Legal advice was omitted from the list because it will be funded by the commission, not the Home Office—that is the innocent explanation. The list deals with the new powers that we want to take to fund new provisions, and accommodation centres will be new. The Government do not intend to leave people in such centres, which may be in semi-rural areas, starved of access to legal advice—that is simply not on our radar.

Simon Hughes: I completely understand the Minister's argument, but the drafting is still flawed in two respects. The clause states:
''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident''.
 It therefore facilitates the provision of the service, but also indirectly gives residents an entitlement. If arranging and providing services that are not Home Office obligations is to be a Government obligation, there must presumably be a statutory provision somewhere, even if that affects another Department. I understand that. 
 My question, in passing, because I am ignorant about such things, is why are three sections in italics, but not the rest?

Angela Eagle: On the italics point, I have absolutely no idea. On the other question, there are general powers that allow us to provide services as and when they are useful to everyone concerned. That brings me to another of the hon. Gentleman's worries—interpreters. We do not specifically allow for the funding of interpreters in any part of the system, but we have sufficient statutory cover to do that, and we believe that it assists the process for all concerned, although it is not referred to in the Bill. Just because something is not listed in the Bill does not mean that it is not provided. Interpretation services are a prime example of that.
 The answer to the question from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about italics is that sections in italics need money resolutions. I now want to deal with this large group of amendments as 
 quickly as possible to facilitate the Committee's progress. 
 Amendment No. 142 would place a duty on us to provide all the facilities listed in clause 25 to residents of accommodation centres, but there is no equivalent duty to provide such services to those who are in dispersal accommodation and in accommodation under the 1999 Act. That would be slightly odd. We are committed to supporting destitute asylum seekers and to providing an appropriate range of services to residents of accommodation centres. We have powers to provide basic living needs and a small cash allowance, education for children on site, primary health care, purposeful activities for adults, including English language training, facilities for religious observance, interpretation facilities, assistance with the initial journey to the centre, travel to appeal hearings and asylum interviews and access to legal advice. All those things will be provided, but as Opposition Members will see, not all of them is included in the list. 
 Government amendment No. 107 is necessary to make it clear that the Secretary of State may fund transport to asylum interviews at which the person's presence has been requested by the immigration and nationality department. Without the amendment, clause 25(1)(c) may have only enabled the Secretary of State to fund travel to appeal hearings or other proceedings mentioned specifically in the 1999 Act. The amendment will allow us to fund other necessary trips that are not related to formal hearings. I hope that hon. Members will see that that is a beneficial change. 
 Amendment No. 184 is unnecessary because the powers in clause 25 are sufficiently wide to enable us to provide the items that it suggests, and more. We intend to offer asylum seekers access to training in English language and IT skills, because they are transferable skills, which will be useful here or back in the asylum seeker's country of origin, if their claim fails. It is right that asylum seekers should use their time in the United Kingdom productively. However, we do not want to be constrained by that list. As this is a trial, it may become obvious that we could also do other things, and the powers in clause 25 will allow us wider discretion than the amendment would. We shall work with the Department for Education and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council on offering training in English to speakers of other languages and other training provision in accommodation centres. As we are fairly close, at least in spirit, on that issue, I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will not press that amendment. 
 I hope that Government amendment No. 108 will alleviate the problems that the hon. Member for Woking has with the provision, which caused him to table amendment No. 144. The hon. Gentleman referred to psychiatric health issues. Amendment No. 108 widens the scope of the provision from purely medical facilities to health facilities. The Oxford English Dictionary defines medical as pertaining to the science or practice of medicine in general or 
 pertaining to medicine as opposed to surgery. That was not quite what we had in mind, whereas health is defined much more widely and could include psychiatric difficulties. In view of that, we consider that ''facilities relating to health'' will better reflect the health care that we want to be able to provide in accommodation centres. With that assurance, I hope that amendment No. 144 will not be pressed. 
 I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's views on legal advice. The other issue that he raised was whether we should use ''shall'' rather than ''may.'' We are using ''may'', not because we want to wriggle out of providing the items in the list as provisions in accommodation centres, but because we are conducting a trial and may want to add other things. ''Shall'' is too limiting at the trial stage, but we have no intention of wriggling out of the list and providing an accommodation centre with beds and no other facilities. That would make no sense. 
 As for amendment No. 145, the hon. Member for Woking wants to create an explicit power to provide interpretation. The Home Office routinely provides interpretation, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in statue that we have that direct power to do so. Clearly, the provision of interpretation enables us to conduct our day-to-day business more effectively, including the functions under the immigration legislation. We considered whether we needed to take an express power to provide interpreters, but concluded that it was unnecessary. Its absence from the list does not mean that we do not intend to provide it. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey tabled amendment No. 183, wanting to provide leisure facilities. I hope that he will consider Government amendment No. 109, which enables us to provide leisure and recreational facilities in so far as they are necessary to provide proper occupation and maintain good order. That is a wide enabling power, which allows us to provide wider services than the explicit ones mentioned in his amendment. I hope that he agrees that there is no particular difference between our provisions and will not press his amendment to a Division. 
 With regard to amendments Nos. 185 and 180 and the 10 per cent. of income support that the hon. Gentleman proposes, we have not decided exactly how large to make the cash allowance. We are thinking about a range of £5 to £14, but no final decisions have been made. That is a similar range to the one that the 10 per cent. of income support would provide. I would not want to be committed to a percentage of income support, but the hon. Gentleman may be reassured by the range that I have given. Government amendment No. 115 corrects a misprint, and we do not need to be detained by it. 
 Given all those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government amendments.

Simon Hughes: Responding to the Minister, I shall work backwards up the list. In relation to the pocket money amendments, I think that she accepts the
 principle, but she neglected to deal with whether the responsibility should be central or delegated. I shall return to that matter in a moment, before the hon. Member for Woking speaks. As she seems to accept the principle of the 10 per cent. income support level, it would be helpful if the Government would come to a firm decision on that before the next stage of the Bill.
 I am not convinced that Government amendment No. 109 exactly covers the leisure and play proposal, but my amendment was only a probing amendment. The amendment seems simply to allow the Government to decide nearer the time what might be appropriate, but is a bit opaque and difficult to read in advance, so it does have a weakness. 
 The substantive points made under the group of amendments related to the contents of the list and the ''may'' and ''shall'' debate. With regard to the contents of the list, the Government's arguments remain problematic in several respects. First, the reason why accommodation centres have a list at all—even if trialled—when people in dispersal do not, is because those who go into accommodation centres will be made to do so. They will not have a choice about that. It is my understanding that the state, having told those people where they must go, must make proposals through Parliament about the facilities for those people. That being the case, whatever we collectively agree is necessary should be in the list. The Minister is right to say that that is different from the set of 17, six or five criteria on the list for dispersal. By definition, and with the best will in the world, it may be impossible to tack all the criteria on to dispersal, given all the places to which people are dispersed. The logic is different. 
 I should mention that we were grateful for the explanation of why the criteria are listed in and out of italics. I have seen that format in other Bills. I must have been given an explanation before and subliminally remembered it, but had actually forgotten it. If all the criteria listed are meant to be provided by the Government, there is no harm—indeed, there is benefit—in their being listed. 
 In parenthesis, I accept the Minister's response about what education and training should be provided. The knowledge that English language and IT will be provided, and that other things may be, seems a good starting point. I do not want to dispute that with her. 
 I shall move on to the question of ''shall'' or ''may'' in relation to legal services. I understand the Minister's point about facilities being available for the Government to fund and provide legal services. I do not predict how the hon. Member for Woking will respond, but I think that it will seem to him as well as me that anyone who wants to know about interpretation, legal advice and assistance should be able to find them in the legislation in the same list as all the other criteria. Also, they must be guaranteed to the same level. 
 I understand that a different Department may be primarily responsible, as legal services are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department, 
 not of the Home Office. However, I ask the Minister to reflect on my point. The inclusion of those criteria is important for us, as it would guarantee the certainty of legal representation and the asylum claim being properly considered. That is the big issue on which all the others depend.

Neil Gerrard: Would the hon. Gentleman like to think about the level at which decisions might be taken on whether provision should be made in a specific centre? Are we to expect that to be done at the top of the Legal Services Commission, or on a more regional basis? I would feel more reassured if I knew that it would be done centrally.

Simon Hughes: That is a good point. I will not repeat it, but I endorse it. There must be common standards for the small number of places trialled around the country. We would all want that to be assured, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's point is picked up.
 Although the Minister dealt with other arguments, she did not tackle the fact that we all know the difference between saying that the Secretary of State ''may'' or ''shall'' do something. If one says ''may'' and the service is not provided, there is no legal remedy. If one says ''shall'', there is a legal remedy. The Government should say that they will provide basic requirements for anyone in the country, especially those whose asylum cases are being processed. The wording should therefore use ''shall'', and there should be consequential legal remedy if those requirements are not provided. 
 That might change the nature of the list, but the list should reflect what is needed. I hope that Ministers think about that, but my colleagues and I, the hon. Member for Woking and his colleagues, and some Back Benchers from the Labour party and other parties may want to push the Government further on it, either today or downstairs sometime. I hope that we can make progress. As in all things, the quicker we reach agreement, the fewer debates we shall need to have on the same subject on later stages of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I must say that I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I am not alone: to judge from their faces, several of her colleagues are disappointed as well, but perhaps I misjudge them.
 To return to the question that I put to the Minister, we were talking about legal advice and the fact that the Government were shortly to announce that they proposed to make a planning application in relation to the land at Bicester. I asked the Minister specifically whether she or any of her colleagues could enlighten us about that, and whether she or they had any knowledge of such an announcement about such a site. I asked whether she could respond. She has not responded. 
 The Minister will understand that if an announcement is made during the next week or two, while the Bill is in Committee or in the other place, many of us would regard it as an affront to the parliamentary system. The Government should not proceed without full consultation while the debate is still in full flow. We shall have to wait and see. Perhaps the Minister is silent because there is nothing—repeat, 
 nothing—she can tell us because she simply does not know. That is the fairest explanation. I cannot think that, knowing something, she would remain firmly seated and fail to tell us. She has remained so seated—until now. I give way to the hon. Lady.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I made a statement a while ago that an announcement would be made shortly about a move to proceed to make planning applications in some of the areas mentioned in the list. There will be no move to build accommodation centres ahead of Royal Assent to the Bill, and he knows very well why that is the case. We expect to make an announcement on moves to proceed toward making planning applications; it is only the beginning of the process.

Humfrey Malins: I have never heard anything like that in my life—the Minister will not tell us. That is an insult to us all, because we are debating the location of accommodation centres, we debated their size earlier, and more debates are to come in the other place, and on Report and Third Reading. If our understanding that the Government are going to make an application in respect of some of those sites is correct, it suggests that they have made up their mind. I specifically asked, as an example, if the site at Bicester, which is very rural, would be among them and thus relevant to the clause, but the Minister clearly does not know. If she did know, she would say so. I leave it at that.
 I said that I was disappointed about that, but I am disappointed also that the Minister is not willing to include in the Bill the sensible provision that independent legal advice and representation should be provided and funded by the Legal Services Commission or the Secretary of State. All hon. Members should make a visit to the Oakington centre, because it is well run: there are 54 case workers from the Refugee Legal Centre on site, and another 54 from the Immigration Advisory Service. One goes as an asylum applicant to Oakington, and what happens next? As I understand it, one is immediately—within a day—advised by competent legal advisers. A high and consistent standard of advice is a good thing, which rather suggests that the RLC and the IAS should be present at all such centres, because that would result in a consistently high quality of advice. Advice pursuant to the Legal Services Commission might not be as consistent; that point was made earlier. 
 Oakington works well at least in part because advice is given on the spot. The Minister's reasoning for not including that provision in the Bill worries us, as legal advice is often much more important than many of the other facilities that are provided under the Bill. Indeed, it is almost the most important service, and the Minister's reason for not including it in the Bill worries us, especially as she insists on keeping in the Bill the provision that it ''may'' be provided rather than that it ''shall'' be provided. I feel strongly that such advice should be available. 
 As I understand it, the Government, through the Home Office, fund the Immigration Advisory Service. As for the Minister's concern about the fact that the 
 Government pay those who provide the advice so that there is some sensitivity and difficulty about independence and conflict of interest, that is complete nonsense; it has not been raised in years. The IAS, like other bodies, operates entirely independently, so the Minister's point is spurious. As for the Legal Services Commission, I understand that it does not have to provide legal services; it will be up to the whim of the local regional manager, so there is no guarantee of legal services from that source. 
 Why will the Minister not have the provision in the Bill? I believe that many Committee members share my view. We are disappointed that a wide range of sensible amendments is being batted back to us by the Government without being taken on board or even taken away for serious consideration. Although the Minister was very unkind about non-governmental organisations a day or two ago, they are united in their view that the provision on independent legal advice and representation should be in the Bill.

Gwyn Prosser: Is not the legal support at Oakington present there without any legal force and without statutory need? We have an induction centre in Dover that receives an enormous amount of support without anything appearing in any Bill.

Humfrey Malins: There are many places where legal advice is present without its being in a Bill. Talking of the induction centre at Dover, following the announcement that it was up and running I rang the Home Office and asked whether I could visit it. The answer was that it did not quite exist as a place; it was a function. I asked whether I could visit it anyway, given that the Government said that it was up and running, only to be told that it could not be visited because it was not a place. The hon. Gentleman will know much more about his constituency than I do, but that is what I was told.

Gwyn Prosser: If the hon. Gentleman comes to Dover as soon as possible, I shall take him round the induction centre and the accommodation centre that supports it.Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman, who has a fine reputation for his work in the field, has offered me an invitation that I take up gladly. I hope that we shall enjoy a good and successful visit as soon as possible. [Interruption.] I hear next Tuesday being suggested; I cannot think of a better day to do it.

Mike Gapes: Take the whole Committee with you.

Humfrey Malins: What a useful thing to do. I do not want to stray from the debate, but I say in all seriousness that we would do our jobs a lot better if we spent a bit less time jaw-jawing in Committee and more time on site seeing what is going on in the real world. According to my Whip, I have said enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 107, in page 12, line 25, at end insert 
'or in connection with a claim for asylum'.
 No. 108, in page 12, leave out line 30 and insert— 
'() facilities relating to health;'.
 No. 109, in page 12, line 31, at end insert— 
'( ) anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for the purpose of providing a resident with proper occupation and for the purpose of maintaining good order;'.—[Angela Eagle.]
 Amendment proposed: No. 143, in page 12, line 33, at end insert— 
'(j) independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Malins.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 146, in page 12, line 41, at end add—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall ensure the presence at accommodation centres of adjudicators to enable appeals to adjudicators to be heard at accommodation centres.'.
 I shall speak briefly to the amendment, which deals with a matter of great importance to which we hope to return in due course. When I went to Oakington to discuss the process there with the powers that be, I learned that the initial decision was made in a day or so and was then communicated to the applicant. I learned that there was no adjudicator on site to hear an appeal. I thought then and think now that if one is trying to create a one-stop shop—a premises on which the whole process can take place efficiently, speedily and humanely—it is essential to have every relevant person on site. 
 To give a parallel from the field of criminal justice, often when an appeal is made against a magistrates court's decision, the court of appeal for the magistrates court—namely, the Crown Court—is in the same complex. That means that the appeal can be listed and heard at a much faster rate than would otherwise be possible. 
 What happens at Oakington and what lessons should we draw from it? Those who run Oakington told me that once the initial decision is made, a certain percentage are granted asylum straight away. However, those who are refused asylum will appeal. Within eight days of their arrival at Oakington a decision has to be made about them. Those in charge of Oakington think that a small percentage of people are at risk of absconding. Some of them are sent to what we shall call detention centres and are held in custody while their appeals are pending, but the vast majority are dispersed round the country pending the hearing of their appeals. I am sorry to say that a great percentage of that group go to ground and are never traced again. That is the reality. 
 Picture the scene for those who do not abscond. They leave Oakington and can go anywhere, to a number of dispersal areas. They are at the whim of their legal advice, which may or may not still be located at Oakington, although it probably is not. They might start taking legal advice in the area to which they go, but that might be 50 or 100 miles from the adjudicator's court that is to hear the appeal. 
 Those who run Oakington say that to make their system efficient and sensible, it would be in the interests of everybody concerned to have the adjudicator hear the appeal on site. The applicant makes his application for asylum and it is granted—terrific. He is given refugee status and goes into the community. If the applicant is refused, however, he appeals. The legal adviser on site then says, ''I am here to help you with the appeal.'' The appeal will be heard by the adjudicator and is listed for the following month. There is a directions hearing before the adjudicator, probably within a few days of the initial refusal. The adjudicator is literally around the corner, and the legal adviser is with the applicant at the accommodation centre. No force is involved, no one is locked in an accommodation centre, but everything is there. 
 The adjudicator could ask whether the appeal was ready for hearing, and the applicant's lawyer might say, ''No. We need to take more evidence.'' The adjudicator could say, ''Very well. We'll have a short adjournment to allow that to happen.'' He might be inclined to grant a reasonable period—no adjudicator can act unreasonably. The point is that if the adjudicator is on site, the speed that the Minister seeks is possible. Equally, if the adjudicator is tens or hundreds of miles away—the precise distance matters not—the link between the applicant and the appeal system is severed by distance, post and perhaps the difficulties of getting local legal advice in the adjudicator's area. How much more sensible it would be to have the adjudicator on site. How much more it would be in the interests of the applicant to have a proper one-stop shop. 
 Opposition Members believe that for the last two, three, four or even five years, the Government have been in charge of a system that simply has not worked, a system that is neither efficient nor sensible. We want to insert into the clause a requirement that the adjudicator—the appeal court from the initial determination—be on site to hear the appeal in specially designated courts with his or her own staff.

Mark Lazarowicz: Unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, in the appeal to the adjudicator, the asylum seeker be restricted in his or her choice of legal advice and representation to what is provided on site, the consequence of his proposal would be that scores of solicitors and other legal advisers would commute to accommodation centres to appear before the adjudicator. How would that lead to efficiency? Would additional costs to the public purse not outweigh any advantage of requiring adjudicators to be on site?

Humfrey Malins: Advisers will surely commute long distances to the centres if, as the Government propose, the centres are in rural areas miles from anywhere. If
 the Government listened to us, however, the centres would be much nearer to urban areas. In any case, the reality is that the legal advice given by the bodies at Oakington, for example, is of very high calibre. Their people are experts in the field and entirely independent. However, no one in an accommodation centre will be obliged to use such advice, because there will be freedom of movement.
 If the centres were placed near towns and other urban areas—places that, to be blunt, the applicant would find much more congenial in terms of services provided—we would not have the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. The problem begins when the appeal of an appellant who is resident in a remote accommodation centre is heard miles away, perhaps as much as 100 miles away—who knows how far it might be? If the requirement that we suggest were not included in the Bill, the travelling to that venue that would be involved for the appellant would make the provision a nonsense. 
 Our proposal is a good idea. I do not know why the Minister is against it. Opposition Members feel strongly about this issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Angela Eagle: Asylum appeals adjudicators and hearing centres are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, but he has agreed in principle to co-locate adjudicator hearing centres with accommodation centres where that is sensible. It is important to ensure a good geographic spread of hearing centres that are accessible to all those who are appealing, because we are working with the dispersal system as well as the trials of accommodation centres. The Home Office will work with the Lord Chancellor's Department to achieve that. At least initially, we are likely to use existing centres, but ultimately we agree that co-location is desirable.
 There may be one caveat: if a suitable hearing centre is within reasonable travelling time of an accommodation centre, it may not be sensible to move it completely to the accommodation centre. However, we are certainly interested in the efficiencies that can be gained by using the Oakington process in so far as it is relevant to non-detainees. We are also considering caseworker interviews being carried out in the centre at an earlier stage of the process and a range of similar measures. 
 We do not want an absolute requirement in the Bill that all hearings be co-located with the centre, but we are interested in considering what we can do to strip down the process and make it more efficient by having services visiting the accommodation centre, rather than individuals moving out to access services. The Bill does, however, create a power to pay travel expenses, at least in the interim, for individuals who may have to travel out. That is partly about trialling the system. 
 I can assure the hon. Member for Woking that we are extremely interested in the efficiencies that can be gained by the kind of approach that he outlined. The Lord Chancellor has agreed in principle that co-location of adjudicator hearing centres would be 
 sensible if we were to proceed with more accommodation centres. I hope that, with the exposure of that thinking, the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Simon Hughes: As the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Woking, I thought it right to let the Minister reply first and I am encouraged by her response. It seems a sensible idea and I understand the point of it. It may not be immediately practical everywhere, but it does seem sensible to move one person, even with one or two back-up staff, to a centre rather than move 250 to 750 people to one person. The logic must be in favour of that. If High Court judges move around the country, it must be logical that adjudicators do so. There is a real need to keep trying to ensure the streamlining of the process between initial decision, adjudicator and tribunal, where we have tribunal appeals, as well as the leave to appeal process.
 To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, it seems to be an approach that could be regionalised in a way that would allow closer scrutiny. We have a national system, in terms of monitoring and performance with, to be honest, comparison between how places perform in different parts of the country. It seems worth considering Wales and each of the English regions separately as areas within which there should be one centre with the adjudicating staff. I am glad that the Government in their other plans from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, with the anticipated Bill for next year, are expecting to co-ordinate the court system. That is no good unless we co-ordinate the tribunal system as well, so people who do this job need to be within the same arrangements system as people who provide the other legal services. I look forward to further announcements in due course.

Humfrey Malins: I am most grateful to the Minister, who answered in a very encouraging fashion and if there was any wind in my sails, which there was, she has removed it quickly with that response. To hear her say that the idea was attractive to the Government and one that they were pursuing leads me to say without equivocation that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Conditions of residence

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 13, line 9, after 'hours', insert
'which shall not be more than 12 hours per day'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 147, in page 13, line 10, after 'manager', insert
'which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld'.
 No. 149, in page 13, line 12, at end insert 
'if it is reasonable to do so'.
 No. 187, in page 13, line 13, after 'centre', insert 'without reasonable excuse'.
 No. 188, in page 13, line 32, at end insert 
'but only if he is satisfied the breach was without reasonable excuse.'.

Humfrey Malins: This clause deals with conditions of residence. My lead amendment refers to the condition that might require a person not to be absent from the centre during specified hours, and seeks to limit it to 12 hours per day. It is simply a probing amendment to find out what kind of restraints the Government expect to be placed on those at accommodation centres. The nearest parallel in my life has been my experience in courts when conditions of bail are imposed upon people. Sometimes, the person must not just reside at a certain place, which in legal terms means live and sleep there, but is subject to a curfew from say 9 o'clock at night until 9 o'clock in the morning. The curfew is imposed to prevent the commission of crimes during that period. I know that the Government will not be able to be specific, but I should like to know how much freedom of movement they expect people in accommodation centres to have. Obviously, there is a requirement to reside there, but one hopes that they will have total freedom during the day to come and go as they wish.
 Amendment No. 147 says that the permission to be absent should not be unreasonably withheld by the manager. It is similar to the last amendment and merely seeks to find out the sort of regime that might operate at a particular accommodation centre. Amendment No. 149 is also similar and says that a condition may require a person to report to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State only 
''if it is reasonable to do so.''
 These are simply probing amendments. We are anxious to ensure that the regime in accommodation centres has a light touch. We are trying to ensure that a reasonable test is inserted into the conditions of residence. This is quite important, because the ability of the authorities to require a person to leave an accommodation centre in the event of a breach could bring unforeseen and nasty consequences for the asylum applicant.

Simon Hughes: As the Committee will see, the group of amendments starts with three that were tabled jointly by the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and us, followed by two more tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam and me. We have made a lot of progress since a year ago. When I was doing this job before the run-up to the last election and going into television and radio studios with Ministers and their Conservative shadows, the entire debate that the Conservatives wanted us to have was about these new centres. They could never quite make up their mind, depending on who was speaking, whether they were detention centres or not. Technically, they were not detention centres and so were a slightly odd creation.

Humfrey Malins: That was not me, though.

Simon Hughes: I was just about to say that now the more enlightened regime has appeared among those in the Conservative Home Office team, they have got off
 these ridiculous head-of-a-pin policies. Had the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues been in their posts before the general election I am sure that we would not have got on to them. We are happily now in more agreed territory. The important point is that the Government are clear that they cannot be detention centres and I am sure that that is correct in international law too. Again, I have not done a pan-European tour of all the variants in the EU. I paid an official visit to Finland a year or so ago and the system there works well. The centres are open, but the residents lose the benefits if they leave them.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Simon Hughes: Before the Division, I said that our amendments would limit the conditions that could be imposed under the clause, so that the accommodation centres do not become detention centres in practice. I hope that the Minister will accept that something should be included along the lines of amendment No. 147, which is about ensuring that the process is reasonable. I know that someone can go to court and have a judicial review, but it is better for reasonableness to be written into the Bill. Amendment No. 149 deals with the same point.
 Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 relate to subsection (4) on breach of condition and are fairly important. They would ensure that there can be no penalty where there was a reasonable excuse for breach of condition, such as a transport delay. In an inquiry about the breach of condition, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there was no good reason. It is important that we get these things right, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman sounds as if he has just run up the stairs to finish his comments. Although we understand the points that are being made, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary, as administrative law requires the Secretary of State and the centre manager to act reasonably. That is implicit in the Bill, and is enforceable. There are already sufficient checks and balances in place to render the amendments superfluous.
 On residence requirements, we stated in the White Paper that residents would be required to sleep in the centre overnight and be subject to regular reporting. We fully intend that these and any other residence conditions imposed by the clause should be reasonable. On the length of time that people are required to be present in any accommodation centre in any 24-hour period, we envisage that the 12 hours specified in amendment No. 148 would be at the top end of the scale. We said that accommodation centres are not detention centres, nor do we want them to become de facto detention centres. We would not want to put a statutory limit on what is reasonable, as that may vary from circumstance to circumstance. However, I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which we would require someone to remain in an 
 accommodation centre for more than 12 hours out of 24. 
 I have already stressed that people in accommodation centres will not be detained. They will be able to come and go. We want accommodation centres to be self-contained communities where people can live as normally as possible. We would expect people to be able to visit their relations or attend a funeral under the terms of clause 26(3). An advantage of accommodation centres is that there will be staff on site so that such decisions can be taken pragmatically and quickly. The Government have no problem with the spirit of amendment No. 147; we merely consider it to be implicit in the Bill. The same is true of amendment No. 149. It may help the Committee to know that we are planning for reporting on accommodation centre residents to take place on site. I hope that that knowledge will help to allay concerns that reporting requirements could be unreasonable. Distance will not be an issue, nor will inability to afford the bus fare or to find someone to look after children, because reporting can take place on site. 
 Staff and asylum seekers will know not to arrange appointments or commitments that clash with reporting requirements. If there is an issue with conflicting or clashing appointments, perhaps because someone needs to see a doctor urgently, centre staff will be able to sort that out on the spot. There will not be pedantic, unreasonable or ridiculous requirements. 
 Under amendment No. 187, we would be able to evict from a centre only when an asylum seeker or his dependant had breached a residence condition without reasonable excuse. Again, I have no difficulty with the spirit of the amendment because that is the approach that we intend to follow. It would be unfair and unreasonable of us to evict someone if they breached their residence conditions through no fault of their own—for example, if they were involved in an accident and could not keep their reporting requirement because they had been taken to hospital, clearly it would be ridiculous and unreasonable to say that that was a breach and we have no intention of doing so. It may be appropriate to require someone to leave a centre if they persistently failed to report, were away overnight without informing us, or acted violently towards another resident, but we would be minded to take a less strict approach with more minor infringements of house rules. 
 Amendment No. 188 is also unnecessary because it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to consider reasonable excuse when deciding whether to withdraw support under clause 26. There is no need to specify in clause 26(8) that the Secretary of State may take into account only the fact that a person has breached the residence conditions without reasonable excuse because that already exists. 
 In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: I am certainly reassured by the Minister. We shall take advice on the implications of what she said, but I hope that she is right and that further reassurances are not required. There are legal remedies outwith the Act that can be exercised.

Humfrey Malins: In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 13, line 29, leave out 'or 95' and insert ', 95 or 98'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 124.

Rosie Winterton: Amendment No. 110 ensures that clause 26(8) refers to all the powers under which asylum support may be provided, and corrects a small omission in the Bill. Subsection (8) already refers to support provided under clauses 15 and 24 and section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. For completeness, this minor amendment makes it explicit that clause 26(8) also applies to section 98 of the 1999 Act. Amendment 124 does the equivalent to clause 39.
 Section 98 of the 1999 Act is used to provide temporary support and emergency accommodation while NASS is considering whether someone is destitute and entitled to asylum support under section 95 of the 1999 Act. Amendment No. 110 is necessary to clarify that, when deciding whether to provide support or assistance under section 98 of the 1999 Act, the Secretary of State may take into account the fact that the person or his dependant has breached a condition of support under the clause. If someone has been supported in an accommodation centre and has either breached a condition of support and has been required to leave the centre or has left of his own volition but subsequently re-presents himself for support, the Secretary of State may take account of his previous behaviour in deciding whether to reinstate support. The amendment and the clause are intended to prevent abuse of the asylum support system because asylum seekers might seek to thwart dispersal to an accommodation centre by leaving the centre and re-presenting themselves at emergency accommodation, perhaps in London, in the hope that they might be permitted to stay there or will be allocated to NASS accommodation, which they might perceive to be preferable. 
 As many hon. Members will know, moving people out of emergency accommodation in London was a particular problem in the early days of the National Asylum Support Service. Clause 26(8), as amended, will enable the Secretary of State to say, ''You have been offered support in an accommodation centre. You have decided to leave that centre. You have breached residence conditions or you have absconded. Therefore I have no obligation to provide you with support in another place.'' 
 That principle is backed up by clause 39. Government amendment No. 124 does for clause 39(2) what Government amendment No. 110 does for clause 26. Clause 39 will give the Secretary of State 
 discretion on the legislation—part VI of the 1999 Act or the Bill—under which he chooses to support an applicant, which will reinforce the policy of support. Government amendment No. 124 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may refuse to provide support under section 98 of the 1999 Act on the basis that support is already being provided or offered under clause 15, clause 22 or section 95 of the 1999 Act. 
 The Government amendments also provide for the reverse case. The Secretary of State may refuse to provide support under clause 15, clause 22 or section 95 of the 1999 Act if support is being offered under section 98. Government amendment No. 124 means that if an applicant is offered temporary support in an accommodation centre under clause 22 while the Secretary of State considers whether they are entitled to support under section 15 or section 95, they would have to take that support. They could not insist on receiving temporary support under section 98 emergency accommodation. 
 As with Government amendment No. 110, the situation that is most likely to arise would be a person deciding to leave an accommodation centre of their own volition and re-presenting themselves for section 98 emergency accommodation in London because they perceive that that is preferable. Amendment No. 124 enables the Secretary of State to refuse to support them in those circumstances. I hope that that explains the relatively minor Government amendments.

Simon Hughes: I have just a couple of short observations and a question for the Minister.
 First, I take my share of responsibility for not flagging this issue up at the beginning of the process. The Minister's perfectly proper retelling of the advice that Ministers have received about the details of the Bill reminds me that, when we consider legislation such as this, it is important that we see a draft Bill and use Special Standing Committee procedure to allow us to take advice on the more technical matters on which, to be honest, we are not expert. I hope that we do that for the rest of this Session and in the next Session. [Interruption.] Everyone looks at their pager to be told that a vote is coming up in 15 minutes or that the vote is off. A pager vibration with nothing worth reading creates unfulfilled expectations. 
 There should be a system that provides ministerial and civil service increments or reductions in salary depending on the number of amendments introduced by the Government during the passage of Bills.

Mike Gapes: Does that apply to the Opposition as well?

Simon Hughes: Absolutely not, but it should apply to Government. Bills are the Government's babies, and if they cannot produce them in a slightly more planned manner, there is something wrong with the conception process at the heart of Government. I shall stop the analogy there.
 There is a real issue, and we have not done too badly so far, although the big blast is to come. Ministers will appreciate that it is helpful to have explanatory notes and notes on clauses when Government amendments or new clauses are tabled 
 late. Can we have them for next week's amendments? It would make life much easier, and it saves Ministers and us time. It also prevents people from tabling amendments that would not be necessary if the full import of the Bill were understood. 
 Somebody could be allocated to an accommodation centre because in the initial interview they said that they did not have anywhere to stay, but later someone could come up with an offer for them to stay with family friends or a person nearby, thereby releasing an accommodation centre place. I wonder whether it would be possible under the provisions for people to say, ''Thank you very much. I'd like to stay with my cousin who I've discovered is only 50 miles down the road.'' Can they do that without prejudicing their other interests while they are having their applications considered?

Rosie Winterton: Yes. The accommodation is for people considered to be destitute, so the situation would change.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 124, in page 13, line 29, leave out 'or 95' and insert ', 95 or 98'—[Ms Winterton.]

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—
'(8A) A resident shall not be deemed to have breached a condition imposed under this section unless a written warning has been issued in relation to a previous relevant and separate incident.'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 150, in page 13, line 34, at end add—
'(10) A person who is given notice under subsections (4) (5) or (6) may appeal against that decision.'.

Simon Hughes: The lead amendment is ours, and the other is a joint Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendment.
 On the day that England selected its world cup squad—we hope that it does better than it has done in recent years, and wins—the lead amendment provides football-type procedures, which are based on good practice, to deal with people who breach their conditions. Football has yellow and red cards, which is not accidental. It is thought that first warnings should not result in a person being taken off the pitch unless the most serious of offences has taken place. We would like a yellow and red card system for breaches of conditions. In the league of amendments, No. 189 has two or three stars, but certainly not five stars. However, it has more than one star, which the previous amendments would have been given. We want such a system so that a resident 
''shall not be deemed to have breached a condition imposed under this section unless a written warning has been issued in relation to a previous relevant and separate incident.''
 We could have a three-phase operation: a verbal warning, a written warning and a recorded breach. 
 However reasonable people might be, less serious offences should not trigger what is technically a breach. Amendment No. 150 would require that a person who is given a notice stating that they have breached conditions under subsections (4), (5) or (6) 
 has the right to appeal. There should be a provision for appeal because there may have been misunderstandings, or facts may have been incorrectly communicated.

Humfrey Malins: My amendment merely flags up the issue of appeal. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Angela Eagle: We heard an interesting football analogy from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, a referee can use a red card straight away depending on the seriousness of the offence. He does not always have to issue written warning to the Vinny Joneses of this world. We intend something similar here. There may be an argument for written warnings for more minor offences, but we want to retain the right to punish somebody for breach, if it is sufficiently serious, whether it is a first offence or not. I am thinking of violence towards other inmates or other such behaviour.
 With that caveat, we accept that the enforcement of the house rules and discipline in accommodation centres must be reasonable, and it will be. All asylum seekers must be clear that if they breach their conditions of residence, their support could be withdrawn, if it was reasonable to do so. The reasonableness revolves around the seriousness of the breach. We intend to make the house rules clear to an asylum seeker arriving in an accommodation centre and to explain the consequences of a breach openly at the beginning, so that nobody can claim that they did not know what the rules were before they breached them, but we do not want excessive reactions to more minor breaches. I hope that we can agree that red cards should be available immediately in the case of a serious breach. 
 Amendment No. 150 is unnecessary, although I understand the Opposition's concern to ensure that asylum seekers have a right of appeal against any decision to withdraw support by being required to leave a centre. Clause 41, which inserts a new section 103 into the 1999 Act, gives a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator against any decision to stop providing support under clause 15 or section 95 of the 1999 Act, or both. There are exceptions. If a person ceases to be an asylum seeker or the dependant of an asylum seeker, support may be withdrawn without a right of appeal, but for behavioural breaches that right is contained in clause 41. 
 I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: I was not suggesting that we should not have a red card system. I understand that there must be a sanction and that people need to know there is one. I shall reflect on what the Minister has said. She spotted a part of the appeal process that I concede I had not spotted before. That is what comes of having more influential friends to give advice on such matters than I have. However, we are grateful for what she said and will reflect on it. For the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 27 - Financial contribution by resident

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in page 14, line 3, leave out 'become realisable' and insert
'has been realised and are under the control of the applicant'.

Eric Illsley: With this we may take amendment No. 191, in page 14, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

Simon Hughes: It might be better to have a multi-party system, as there might then be more opportunities for other people to say something.
 Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House. 
 On resuming— 
 It being after Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order C [28 June 2001], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Tenure

Amendment made: No. 111, in page 14, line 33, at end insert— 
'( ) In this section a reference to an accommodation centre includes a reference to premises in which accommodation is provided under section 22(b).'.—[Angela Eagle.]
 Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Ancillary provisions

Amendments made: No 112, in page 14, line 41, at end insert— 
'( ) section 108 (failure of sponsor to maintain),'.
 No. 113, in page 14, line 43, at end insert— 
'( ) section 113 (recovery of expenditure from sponsor),'.
 No. 114, in page 15, line 5, at end insert— 
'( ) In the application of section 113 a reference to section 95 of that Act shall be treated as a reference to section 15 of this Act.'.—[Angela Eagle.]
 Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Education: General

Amendments made: No. 153 in page 15, line 11, leave out subsection (2). 
 No. 198, in page 15, line 18, leave out 
'unless the school or nursery is'
 and insert— 
'(3A) But subsection (3) does not prevent a child's admission to a school which is— 
 (a) a community special school or a foundation special school, and 
 (b) '.
 No. 199, in page 15, line 21, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (3A)'. 
 No. 154, in page 15, line 31, at end insert— 
'() section 94 of that Act (appeal),'.
 No. 155, in page 15, line 32, after 'school),' insert— 
'() section 316(3) of that Act (child with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream school),'.
 No. 200, in page 15, line 34, at end insert— 
'( ) The power of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal under section 326(3) of the Education Act 1996 (c.56) (appeal against content of statement) is subject to subsection (3) above.'.
 No. 115, in page 15, line 38, leave out '25(1)(g)' and insert '25(1)(f)'. 
 No. 156, in page 15, line 40, after 'for,', insert— 
'(aa) the provision of efficient education for other children who are residents of the centre,'.
 No. 157, in page 15, line 41, at end insert— 
'() A person may rely on subsection (6)(aa) only where there is no action— 
 (a) which could reasonably be taken by that person or by another person who exercises functions, or could exercise functions, in respect of the accommodation centre concerned, and 
 (b) as a result of which subsection (6)(aa) would not apply.'.
 No. 158, in page 16, line 3, at end insert— 
'() Subsections (1), (3) and (5) shall not apply in relation to an accommodation centre if education is not provided for children who are residents of the centre under section 25(1)(f).'—[Angela Eagle.]
 Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Education: Special cases

Amendments made: No. 159, in page 16, line 12, leave out 'provide' and insert 
'arrange for the provision of'.
 No. 160, in page 16, line 12, leave out 'which' and insert 'whom'. 
 No. 161, in page 16, line 13, leave out 'which' and insert 'whom'. 
 No. 162, in page 16, line 19, leave out 'for the school'. 
 No. 163, in page 16, line 20, leave out 'which' and insert 'whom'. 
 No. 164, in page 16, line 24, leave out from 'size),' to end of line 26. 
 No. 165, in page 16, line 29, at end insert— 
'() In the case of a maintained school for which the local education authority are the admission authority, the authority may not arrange for the admission of a child to whom this section applies unless the authority has notified the school in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.—[Angela Eagle.]
 Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - ''Prescribed'': orders and regulations

Amendment made: No. 201, in page 17, line 9, at end insert— 
'( ) section [Withdrawal of support under Part 2],'.—[Angela Eagle.]
 Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Scotland

Amendment made: No. 116, in page 17, line 28, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).—[Angela Eagle.] 
 Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock till Tuesday 14 May at half-past Ten o'clock.